All this article does is attack a straw-man version of post-scarcity economics. What sufficiently immature humans want is arbitrary, of course they can want mo

All this article does is attack a straw-man version of post-scarcity economics. What sufficiently immature humans want is arbitrary, of course they can want more than whatever they happen to have. You could want all the figurines Matel ever made or beer made from yeast that went into space or any number of silly things. But, most people accept that there is a finite amount that humans could reasonably want, and experience carries out this view- consider the studies showing that the happiness gained from wealth tends to plateau somewhere around 100K/year. Everyone having that kind of wealth someday is plausible, and that's what most reasonable people mean when they talk about post-scarcity. (For more on people wanting things in post-scarcity societies, see the Culture series.) >Unfortunately for all of us, however, scarcity isn’t going anywhere. And the only way to maximize human want satisfaction with a limited pool of resources is with unhampered markets: private property and prices. ...I'm not sure if they take free-market dogma as a given or if they think they've supported this argument somehow. As it stands, the gross inefficiency produced by free-market capitalism is one of the biggest reasons we're not there yet. Corporations are held as paragons of resource efficiency individually, of course, but collectively they're as wasteful as anything else. For example, billions of dollars are spent in marketing wars between equivalent products (iOS and Android, DC and Marvel, Pepsi and Coke)- what do those conflicts produce, in sum? Wasted money.