3 ms·

Capitalism is about the flow of capital. Most people don't have capital, so they have to trade their labor for a small amount with people that do have capital,

Capitalism is about the flow of capital. Most people don't have capital, so they have to trade their labor for a small amount with people that do have capital, who are only trading it to get more capital. Articles like this assume that everything will change - except how capital works. Bitcoin. Crowdfunding. Distributed banking. Mass market barter transactions. I can't help but think that centralized stores of capital (i.e. the top layer, the rich, the capitalist, etc etc) are naturally going to become obsolete. Unless, of course, they're kept alive by force.

laotzu 11y ago
>Unless, of course, they're kept alive by force. Which has increasingly been the case since the 70's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout#Cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout#Cases
- padobson 11y ago
  Which is why I find the "base income" suggestions so prevalent in this thread somewhat disturbing. The government is more likely to exacerbate this problem than solve it.
  - laotzu 11y ago
    As a proponent of a universal income, I think that's where a lot of the debate fizzles out, and rightly so. Developing a UBI within the status quo framework of centralized government and the dollar (another highly centralized social institution) would be misguided and would completely inhibit the potential of such a system. A real UBI would be a distributed network, which is incompatible with such highly centralized systems.
    - padobson 11y ago
      Any materials out there on ways implement this? I'd love to read up on it further.
      - laotzu 11y ago
        I'd recommend Critical Path and Grunch of Giants by Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983). Fuller was the former president of the Mensa society and claimed that a universal income became technically feasible in the 1970's. Critical Path: http://www.btronics.com/files/R.%20Buckminster%20Fuller%20-%20Critical%20path%20(pdf).pdf http://www.btronics.com/files/R.%20Buckminster%20Fuller%20-%... >World Game makes it clear that the world electrical systems' energy-network integration and its comprehensive powering of automated, special case machinery would most effectively counter the peril of overspecialization of the humans and would introduce the omni-Universe-operative, time-energy, kilowatt-hours-per-year, commonwealth accounting system. This cosmic accounting will computer-establish the up-to-the-moment-realized cosmic-energy-income-harnessing thus far accomplished; and the technical-efficiency levels attained in the various energy-employing technologies operative around the world; and the resultant per capita individually employable world commonwealth facilities; and the per capita "consumable," "employable," and "enjoyable" "credits" in respect to any specific consumables, commodities, services, conveniences, or tools as manifest on the satellite-relay-integrated world computers and as individually called for and read out on each individual's electronic computer "credit card." The individually available information will govern the individual's design science choices of the highest relative-efficiency systems to be employed. It will also tell people whether they can do this or that, and if so, how they can go most swiftly— for instance, from New York to Australia—and will "book" a travel reservation and will prepay the bill for the travel accommodation. All such in- formation is continually computer-integrated to produce the commonwealth evaluations and their read-out-ability on world-individual's pocket-computer "credit card." These will always register the world individual's share of the ever-increasingly-employable technological savings reserves and their respective technologically operative capabilities. With humanity employing such a world-around, satellite-relayed, and world-integrated computer accounting system, the world can, overnight, physically realize the "Omnibillionaire Commonwealth" of its humans. Grunch of Giants: https://tripinsurancestore.com/4/grunch-of-giants.pdf https://tripinsurancestore.com/4/grunch-of-giants.pdf >There exists a realizable, evolutionary alternative to our being either atom-bombed into extinction or crowding ourselves off the planet. The alternative is the computer-persuadable veering of big business from its weaponry fixation to accommodation of all humanity at an aerospace level of technology, with the vastly larger, far more enduringly profitable for all, entirely new World Livingry Service Industry. It is statistically evident that the more advanced the living standard, the lower the birth rate.
pjc50 11y ago
This is where "r > g" and Picketty's work is relevant. The rate of return on capital matters. Centralised capital earning a return will always pull ahead of small-scale capital unless there's enough regulatory and other handicapping to the advantage of the small capital investment. Can decentralised capital get a better rate of return than centralised capital? If so, centralised capital can just invest in it. If not, you'll end up paying your decentralised returns back and more in rent. Property is the ultimate centralised store of capital.
- padobson 11y ago
  If not, you'll end up paying your decentralised returns back and more in rent. Property is the ultimate centralised store of capital. I think this would assume that decentralized investments won't be able to afford autonomous, off-the-grid living arrangements. There's still a whole lot more land out there than we need. And it wouldn't need to support everyone, just enough so that there's an alternative to keep rents from skyrocketing. Anything else you pay for can be decentralized, as the article demonstrates.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    There's still a whole lot more land out there than we need You can't be serious - there isn't any unowned land out there. Certainly not in the western world. Sure, in the Americas you can squat on government land for a while and hope nobody notices, but that involves being miles away from anywhere and if you're off the grid it seriously hampers your earning potential. In the UK there is simply nowhere you can do this. Anything else you pay for can be decentralized Microchip fabs?
    - padobson 11y ago
      You can't be serious - there isn't any unowned land out there. You can buy land for less than $2,000 per acre in just about every inland state in the US. A cursory glance at Zillow shows that even Rhode Island has sub-$100k/acre available[1]. But that involves being miles away from anywhere and if you're off the grid it seriously hampers your earning potential. I'll concede that we're not there yet, but technology makes off-the-grid living and working more feasible all the time. Microchip fabs? You mean like Intel? A company with 1800 owners?[2] But without getting to boiled down in the minutia, my problem with Picketty is that there's no reason that the "r" in "r > g" couldn't be distributed using crowd-funding and decentralized currencies (and whatever their successors might be) by the natural flow of capital, rather than relying on the coercive methods Picketty suggests. [1]http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/RI/land_type/50_rid/2-_beds/0-540484_price/0-2000_mp/priced_sort/42.172564,-69.893646,41.026535,-72.557831_rect/8_zm/0_mmm/ http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/RI/land_type/50_rid/2-_... [2]http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/ownership-summary http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/ownership-summary
s73v3r 11y ago
They have the money. How in the hell are they going to "naturally" become obsolete?

laotzu 11y ago

>Unless, of course, they're kept alive by force. Which has increasingly been the case since the 70's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout#Cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout#Cases

padobson 11y ago
Which is why I find the "base income" suggestions so prevalent in this thread somewhat disturbing. The government is more likely to exacerbate this problem than solve it.
- laotzu 11y ago
  As a proponent of a universal income, I think that's where a lot of the debate fizzles out, and rightly so. Developing a UBI within the status quo framework of centralized government and the dollar (another highly centralized social institution) would be misguided and would completely inhibit the potential of such a system. A real UBI would be a distributed network, which is incompatible with such highly centralized systems.
  - padobson 11y ago
    Any materials out there on ways implement this? I'd love to read up on it further.
    - laotzu 11y ago
      I'd recommend Critical Path and Grunch of Giants by Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983). Fuller was the former president of the Mensa society and claimed that a universal income became technically feasible in the 1970's. Critical Path: http://www.btronics.com/files/R.%20Buckminster%20Fuller%20-%20Critical%20path%20(pdf).pdf http://www.btronics.com/files/R.%20Buckminster%20Fuller%20-%... >World Game makes it clear that the world electrical systems' energy-network integration and its comprehensive powering of automated, special case machinery would most effectively counter the peril of overspecialization of the humans and would introduce the omni-Universe-operative, time-energy, kilowatt-hours-per-year, commonwealth accounting system. This cosmic accounting will computer-establish the up-to-the-moment-realized cosmic-energy-income-harnessing thus far accomplished; and the technical-efficiency levels attained in the various energy-employing technologies operative around the world; and the resultant per capita individually employable world commonwealth facilities; and the per capita "consumable," "employable," and "enjoyable" "credits" in respect to any specific consumables, commodities, services, conveniences, or tools as manifest on the satellite-relay-integrated world computers and as individually called for and read out on each individual's electronic computer "credit card." The individually available information will govern the individual's design science choices of the highest relative-efficiency systems to be employed. It will also tell people whether they can do this or that, and if so, how they can go most swiftly— for instance, from New York to Australia—and will "book" a travel reservation and will prepay the bill for the travel accommodation. All such in- formation is continually computer-integrated to produce the commonwealth evaluations and their read-out-ability on world-individual's pocket-computer "credit card." These will always register the world individual's share of the ever-increasingly-employable technological savings reserves and their respective technologically operative capabilities. With humanity employing such a world-around, satellite-relayed, and world-integrated computer accounting system, the world can, overnight, physically realize the "Omnibillionaire Commonwealth" of its humans. Grunch of Giants: https://tripinsurancestore.com/4/grunch-of-giants.pdf https://tripinsurancestore.com/4/grunch-of-giants.pdf >There exists a realizable, evolutionary alternative to our being either atom-bombed into extinction or crowding ourselves off the planet. The alternative is the computer-persuadable veering of big business from its weaponry fixation to accommodation of all humanity at an aerospace level of technology, with the vastly larger, far more enduringly profitable for all, entirely new World Livingry Service Industry. It is statistically evident that the more advanced the living standard, the lower the birth rate.

pjc50 11y ago

This is where "r > g" and Picketty's work is relevant. The rate of return on capital matters. Centralised capital earning a return will always pull ahead of small-scale capital unless there's enough regulatory and other handicapping to the advantage of the small capital investment. Can decentralised capital get a better rate of return than centralised capital? If so, centralised capital can just invest in it. If not, you'll end up paying your decentralised returns back and more in rent. Property is the ultimate centralised store of capital.

padobson 11y ago
If not, you'll end up paying your decentralised returns back and more in rent. Property is the ultimate centralised store of capital. I think this would assume that decentralized investments won't be able to afford autonomous, off-the-grid living arrangements. There's still a whole lot more land out there than we need. And it wouldn't need to support everyone, just enough so that there's an alternative to keep rents from skyrocketing. Anything else you pay for can be decentralized, as the article demonstrates.
- pjc50 11y ago
  There's still a whole lot more land out there than we need You can't be serious - there isn't any unowned land out there. Certainly not in the western world. Sure, in the Americas you can squat on government land for a while and hope nobody notices, but that involves being miles away from anywhere and if you're off the grid it seriously hampers your earning potential. In the UK there is simply nowhere you can do this. Anything else you pay for can be decentralized Microchip fabs?
  - padobson 11y ago
    You can't be serious - there isn't any unowned land out there. You can buy land for less than $2,000 per acre in just about every inland state in the US. A cursory glance at Zillow shows that even Rhode Island has sub-$100k/acre available[1]. But that involves being miles away from anywhere and if you're off the grid it seriously hampers your earning potential. I'll concede that we're not there yet, but technology makes off-the-grid living and working more feasible all the time. Microchip fabs? You mean like Intel? A company with 1800 owners?[2] But without getting to boiled down in the minutia, my problem with Picketty is that there's no reason that the "r" in "r > g" couldn't be distributed using crowd-funding and decentralized currencies (and whatever their successors might be) by the natural flow of capital, rather than relying on the coercive methods Picketty suggests. [1]http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/RI/land_type/50_rid/2-_beds/0-540484_price/0-2000_mp/priced_sort/42.172564,-69.893646,41.026535,-72.557831_rect/8_zm/0_mmm/ http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/RI/land_type/50_rid/2-_... [2]http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/ownership-summary http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/ownership-summary

s73v3r 11y ago

They have the money. How in the hell are they going to "naturally" become obsolete?