
Post-Scarcity Economics (2013) - hocaoglv
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/post-scarcity-economics
======
baron816
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.

~~~
brightball
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.

~~~
jstanley
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.

~~~
misja111
Although electricity, food, etc. are not provided automatically yet, I don't
think that in the developed world they are scarce anymore. People don't chase
a promotion, work overhours or buy a lottery ticket in the hope of being able
to obtain more food. It might not be a gourmet meal in a Michelin star
restaurant, but you surely can buy as much food as you need to never be
hungry.

If you want a car, then at least in the Western world, you can buy one. It
might not be a Ferrari, but when physical transportation is what you are
after, it is definitely affordable.

So why do many people still work so hard? Because they don't just want things
that are sufficient, they desire to have luxury goods, food or leisure. And
how do you define luxury? It is something better than you have now, or even
better, something better than what your neighbours/ friends or colleagues
have.

This will not change, no matter how easily food and other basic goods become
available. Because it is part of human nature to desire to have status, more
than that, this is what is driving evolution for many other animals as well.

So a true post-scarcity will never exist. People will just invent new goods or
services to go after in the future when today's iphones and sportscars have
become affordable. Not because they need them, but for the simple fact that
they are difficult to obtain.

~~~
marcosdumay
> So why do many people still work so hard?

Let me make you a question. For how long will you still afford all that stuff
if you simply quit working?

~~~
TeMPOraL
This. Especially with western world moving more and more into service-based
economy, we're literally beginning to have to pay rent to survive.

------
ddnb
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?

~~~
maxxxxx
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.

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

~~~
cat199
tax+spend; not supporting 'trickle down' economics w/r/t other gov't policies,
actually enforcing monopoly laws, regulating other areas in favor of small
business (e.g. FCC used to have media ownership laws to keep media companies
smaller) etc..

if everyone has more money but there is no cap on the top, things will just
get more expensive, and then more basic income will be provided, and the cycle
will continue..

not necessarily a fan or a detractor of any/all of these things, but just
chiming in.

~~~
maxxxxx
I wonder how things would work out if we had a system where companies beyond a
certain size are strongly discouraged. I think the economy would be much
healthier if we had many small businesses instead of behemoths like apple and
Google

~~~
Helmet
Small business employ the plurality of Americans. Also, you made a disparaging
comment towards Republicans earlier, and I just want to point out that Google,
MS, Apple, etc. etc. are virtually all staffed by liberals and Democrats. Oh,
and those Wallstreet bankers that seem to be perpetually in the left's cross
hairs? Democrat, democrat, democrat.

~~~
maxxxxx
Are you disputing that the Republican tax plans are mainly aimed towards
lowering taxes for upper incomes and most of the benefits would flow to the
top 0.x percent? I don't think facts are disparaging.

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

