Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/post-scarcity-economics

by hocaoglv • 9 years ago

42 94 9 years ago

baron816• 9 years ago

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.

protonfish3• 9 years ago

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.

mcny3• 9 years ago

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.

brightball2• 9 years ago

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.

jstanley3• 9 years ago

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.

twoquestions3• 9 years ago

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, is true Liberty, which rightly terrifies our ruling class.

I know this is a bit abstract, but I hope it makes sense.

imgabe• 9 years ago

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.

TeMPOraL7• 9 years ago

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.

jstanley3• 9 years ago

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.

rrivers• 9 years ago

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?

jchanimal• 9 years ago

This is why we need a multi-dimensional currency instead of a commodity currency. https://www.wired.com/2014/07/document-coin/

marcosdumay3• 9 years ago

Enough of what?

ionised• 9 years ago

There is plenty for everyone.

The problem is it is not being distributed fairly.

ddnb2• 9 years ago

An 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?

maxxxxx10• 9 years ago

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 change in moral attitudes so it's just not accepted by society that certainly people claim all the gains for themselves instead off spreading them out. Child labor used to be prevalent but in most Western societies it's not ok anymore even if there is profit to be made. So maybe this will happen to income inequality too.

ddnb2• 9 years ago

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

Helmet4• 9 years ago

Just let people's incomes rise at the same rate the economy grows

What do you mean? Have you considered the relationship between income and the "rate the economy grows"?

funneling all gains to the business owners

Yes, the accumulation of capital gains should rightly go to the owners of capital.

Republicans seem hell bent to accelerate the trend towards more income concentration at the top with their tax plans.

Those at the bottom of the income spectrum pay virtually no taxes, so yes, tax cuts should be directed towards those that actually pay taxes (upper-middle and upper income earners), and who are, arguably, more skilled in deploying capital in ways which are productive.

I don't know how to change this realistically.

Income inequality will not be resolved through transfer payments or redistribution - it will be solved through job skills training and growth in labor production.

To put it simply: no poor person has ever gotten me a job.

baursak5• 9 years ago

Basic income has become a buzzword, with different people having different understanding about what it really means. Even right-wing libertarians seem to be in favor of basic income if it means replacing all other forms of social safety net, like welfare, disability benefits, etc.

The more you think about it, the more it doesn't make sense. Should a disabled veteran receive the same amount of basic income as a billionaire heir? Should a single mother of three working at Walmart receive the same total basic income as three Google employees?

A well managed welfare state is a much better option than basic income, in my opinion.

francisofascii2• 9 years ago

Media seems to be a good example of this. Movies and TV shows continue to be created and preserved increasing the supply, but consuming media does not mean less for others.

wyager• 9 years ago

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.

kiliantics• 9 years ago

I recommend people interested in alternative social structures for a post-scarcity world to look into Murray Bookchin

Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

Related Stories