
Future Economy (2010) [video] - NurAzhar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilY4hRgfC2Q
======
flareback
It's a nice theory but doesn't solve the problem of supply and demand. If
there are 7 billion people on earth that all want a widget, how does this
economic philosophy handle the fact that the manufacturing capability can only
produce enough widgets for 1 billion people. Who decides which billion people
get the widget?

~~~
canadian_voter
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 exist, however, especially on a starship: crew quarters
are probably not all of the same size, for example. Some people might have to
walk a little further to the turbolift (elevator). These sorts of resource
allocation problems are likely solved by either a lottery method or based on
need. For example, if the Captain gets bigger quarters, it's not because she's
the captain, it's because she might need the space to host visiting delegates,
etc.

Although I suppose there are still some material inequalities based on rank.
For example, ensigns get a single rank pip, while a captain gets four.

~~~
blakeyrat
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.

~~~
Pica_soO
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
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.

------
ZenoArrow
Here's the thing, we could live like this now, we don't need any new
technological advancements to make this possible, yet we haven't and don't.

So if you're waiting for the future to make this altruistic lifestyle
mainstream, ask yourself what's holding it back now. It's certainly not a lack
of material wealth, we've had that for centuries.

------
js8
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 precedence over the needs of each of us. The only way to
reverse the decision is -

\- to collectively agree that every one of you wants something else?

Yes. There is an old economic theory predicting that the preferences of the
society should eventually reflect individual preferences of its members, at
least in the long run. There is still hope that this will happen in the
future, but not before I will be long dead, I'm afraid.

~~~
jjaredsimpson
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.

------
hacker_9
I wish. The truth is the whole world is run on money, meaning the millionaires
and billionaires are the ones in charge. It absolutely doesn't have to be this
way; we already produce so much food no one need starve. But greed runs deep
within humanity, preventing this sort of change from ever happening.

~~~
aiNohY6g
You can make this change happen in your own life. Perhaps not completely, but
probably significantly enough to make a big difference. Truth is: the whole
world is run on money.... because we're all looking for money. Change your
mind, use all the margin you have, promote humanity, and your world starts to
change.

~~~
hacker_9
This isn't a small scale change, everyone has to be on board for it to work.

~~~
aiNohY6g
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. It can be yours.

------
aiNohY6g
(haven't watched it yet) Why should we wait for the future to improve
ourselves and humanity? IMHO we should start right now. We should even have
started a long time ago.

~~~
hacker_9
Mainly because the ones in power want to stay in power, and actively stop
change. We are safer than ever, yet according to the media we are super lucky
to not be killed by a terrorist every second of the day.

~~~
aiNohY6g
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Servitu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Servitude)

The essay argues that any tyrant remains in power until his subjects grant him
that, therefore delegitimizing every form of power. The original freedom of
men would be indeed abandoned by society which, once corrupted by the habit,
would have preferred the servitude of the courtier to the freedom of the free
man, who refuses to be submissive and to obey.

------
Pica_soO
Well at least we have Swedish furniture. Take the wall-alcove Borg for
example. Visit the next Ikea-Kubus near you.

Transhumanism had a Backdoor.

------
UK-AL
The money is just tool to achieve your goals.

You don't need to get rid of it to acheive your personal goals.

~~~
jjaredsimpson
Money isn't a tool. Tool have uses and multiply productivity of their users.
Money is, among other things, a representative of value.

~~~
UK-AL
Money does have multiple uses and multiplies productivity if correctly used

------
blakeyrat
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 Bajorans were
also highly religious. Starfleet had a shadowy spy organization willing to
assassinate foreign leaders. A Starfleet Captain becomes a traitor to Earth--
twice!

And yet despite that, Deep Space 9 is one of the most beloved Star Trek
series.

Related to the clip above:

(Quark is selling an auction of a 1950s baseball card Jake wants. Jake's
convincing Nog, a Ferengi, to help him.)

Nog: "It's my money, Jake! If you want to bid at the auction, use your own
money."

Jake: "I'm Human, I don't have any money."

Nog: "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based
economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement."

Jake: "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to
better ourselves and the rest of Humanity."

Nog: "What does that mean exactly?"

Jake: "It means... it means we don't need money!"

Nog: "Well, if you don't need money, then you certainly don't need mine!"

~~~
hacker_9
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.

~~~
blakeyrat
What threshold is going to make prime real estate lots around Lake Washington
not scarce?

Asking seriously. Because I have a lot of imagination and I can't come up with
anything. Except perhaps we all plug into VR 24/7 like The Matrix. But even in
my fake Matrix VR house, I'd envy the guy with the real thing.

~~~
bkirkby
you may envy the guy with the "real thing," but future generations likely
won't. if you have fully immersive virtual reality environments, then it won't
matter where you live.

as someone who has done a recent job search, i knew i couldn't afford to live
in the bay area with my large family, but half og the companies i interviewed
with were in the bay area allowing me to work remotely. the technology and
kind of work we do (software engineering) is getting good enough to broaden
the reach of "the office."

if we had just fully integrated audio and visual environments, for work
collaboration, i could see many people choosing to live at the lakeside in
montana and work in seattle rather than having to live on Lake Washington.

