4 ms·

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 phi

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?

ZenoArrow 10y ago
Do they have to own said widget, or do they merely require use of said widget?
- flareback 10y ago
  irrelevant. Only 1 billion people can have it and 7 billion want it.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    It is relevant. Imagine everyone wants to use a car. Is everyone going to be using a car at every point during the day? No. Shared ownership allows you to drastically reduce the number of items that need to be produced. Look around you at the things in your house. How many of those things do you use on a regular basis, and how many things are under utilised for most of the time. Shared ownership means you get access to a much wider range of items whilst reducing the cost of ownership.
hacker_9 10y ago
I would think that in such a society, people would upload blueprints for how to create things, which you could then send to your local manufacturing plant to get built. Some sort of advanced 3d printer could even see these sorts of things widespread. Additionally it would be 100% recyclable, with the idea that you would 'give back to the earth' when you were done with it (materialism would be a thing of the past).
- flareback 10y ago
  It doesn't matter how it gets created if there is only the manufacturing capability to produce x amount yet more than x number of people want it? Maybe there isn't the raw materials to produce it, perhaps it takes too long to produce. Maybe it's that we all want our own spaceship and don't want to be under the command of Captain Picard. Maybe it's something even more limited like a house exactly on the north pole. Without money, who decides who gets to live exactly on the north pole?
  - hacker_9 10y ago
    Perhaps with a VR setup like The Matrix, we could all have what we want all the time. Within the society of the world though, there are rules and hard limits so we can all live together peacefully. Besides everyone having their own stuff is what caused many of our problems in the first place, but this is a very hard mindset to get out of (survival instinct being the root cause of it, meaning it's biologically hardcoded behaviour).
- blakeyrat 10y ago
  Ok I want lake-front property with a view of Mount Rainier. What address do I send my blueprint to? Oh wait. I'll never understand why people who promote this "magical robots solve everything" view ignore the simple examples that robots, no matter how sophisticated, cannot fix. For example, scarcity of prime real estate.
  - hacker_9 10y ago
    One of the main problems with housing is it is stuck in place, which gives rise to lots of problems: 1. you have to build round existing structures 2. if the sea level rises, there is nothing you can do 3. small roads can't be widened to accommodate heavier traffic and so on. In the future the concept of a fixed house would be bizarre, with everything being able to be made portable. It would be normal to have giant shifts in house placement and rewiring of pipes and electricity via AI bots, in order to accommodate change.
aiNohY6g 10y ago
Even if you optimize the supply/demand problem, you just can't rule a finite world with infinite desires. At some point, there are things you need to give up. The question is: which things, and when?
- flareback 10y ago
  exactly. Money helps solve this problem.
  - aiNohY6g 10y ago
    This problem = boundless desires. Money is just some kind of palliative care, not a cure.
    - UK-AL 10y ago
      Money easily allows you trade-off various needs and desires, and focus on the ones you really want.
      - aiNohY6g 10y ago
        If you need money to prioritize your desires, money is just a workaround for your lack of judgment. If you go this way: the things you really want are the ones that probably a lot of people want too. Then enters the offer/demand relation, and the price you have to pay for it is consequently not connected anymore with its cost. In the end, you pay much more. I do agree we we need to think at the individual level first. I means we have to think out of social/collective convention during this first step. Money is one of it. Desire is not. Let's start with desire, then figure out what we can do with money?
        icebraining 10y ago
        If you need money to prioritize your desires No, one needs money to prioritize one's desires relative to the availability of resources. Two persons might have the same order of preferences (A > B > C), but one person might rather have (A) alone, while the other prefers to have (B, C). By having an universal credits system, the two can bid on stuff and come out with a good compromise.
canadian_voter 10y ago
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.
- flareback 10y ago
  Until we learn how to create something out of nothing, there will be no post-scarcity world.
- blakeyrat 10y ago
  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.
  - canadian_voter 10y ago
    Not everyone can get what they want, but certainly everyone gets what they need. Everyone living in mansions? Nope. But is anybody homeless? Nope. It's a trade-off. Many sought-after things are scarce. Starship commissions are scarce. They require hard work and are assigned based on merit. Not just anyone gets the opportunity to explore the edge of space; it takes dedication and sacrifice. The show is certainly influence by the philosophy of Stoicism[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
CuriouslyC 10y ago
The truth is, we have the means now to provide food, medicine and power to the entire world easily. People actually need those things. People don't need widgets, and they've lived meaningful lives for millenia without them. It's only through the deceit of advertising that you think they are necessary. They're nice, but you adapt fairly quickly to life without them.
- UK-AL 10y ago
  Widget could mean anything. So yes people need widgets. It could be a capital good used for farming.
- golergka 10y ago
  So, you're going to tell people what they actually need and what they don't? From each by his ability, to each by his needs? This have already been tried you know. Didn't work. At all.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

Do they have to own said widget, or do they merely require use of said widget?

flareback 10y ago
irrelevant. Only 1 billion people can have it and 7 billion want it.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  It is relevant. Imagine everyone wants to use a car. Is everyone going to be using a car at every point during the day? No. Shared ownership allows you to drastically reduce the number of items that need to be produced. Look around you at the things in your house. How many of those things do you use on a regular basis, and how many things are under utilised for most of the time. Shared ownership means you get access to a much wider range of items whilst reducing the cost of ownership.

hacker_9 10y ago

I would think that in such a society, people would upload blueprints for how to create things, which you could then send to your local manufacturing plant to get built. Some sort of advanced 3d printer could even see these sorts of things widespread. Additionally it would be 100% recyclable, with the idea that you would 'give back to the earth' when you were done with it (materialism would be a thing of the past).

flareback 10y ago
It doesn't matter how it gets created if there is only the manufacturing capability to produce x amount yet more than x number of people want it? Maybe there isn't the raw materials to produce it, perhaps it takes too long to produce. Maybe it's that we all want our own spaceship and don't want to be under the command of Captain Picard. Maybe it's something even more limited like a house exactly on the north pole. Without money, who decides who gets to live exactly on the north pole?
- hacker_9 10y ago
  Perhaps with a VR setup like The Matrix, we could all have what we want all the time. Within the society of the world though, there are rules and hard limits so we can all live together peacefully. Besides everyone having their own stuff is what caused many of our problems in the first place, but this is a very hard mindset to get out of (survival instinct being the root cause of it, meaning it's biologically hardcoded behaviour).
blakeyrat 10y ago
Ok I want lake-front property with a view of Mount Rainier. What address do I send my blueprint to? Oh wait. I'll never understand why people who promote this "magical robots solve everything" view ignore the simple examples that robots, no matter how sophisticated, cannot fix. For example, scarcity of prime real estate.
- hacker_9 10y ago
  One of the main problems with housing is it is stuck in place, which gives rise to lots of problems: 1. you have to build round existing structures 2. if the sea level rises, there is nothing you can do 3. small roads can't be widened to accommodate heavier traffic and so on. In the future the concept of a fixed house would be bizarre, with everything being able to be made portable. It would be normal to have giant shifts in house placement and rewiring of pipes and electricity via AI bots, in order to accommodate change.

aiNohY6g 10y ago

Even if you optimize the supply/demand problem, you just can't rule a finite world with infinite desires. At some point, there are things you need to give up. The question is: which things, and when?

flareback 10y ago
exactly. Money helps solve this problem.
- aiNohY6g 10y ago
  This problem = boundless desires. Money is just some kind of palliative care, not a cure.
  - UK-AL 10y ago
    Money easily allows you trade-off various needs and desires, and focus on the ones you really want.
    - aiNohY6g 10y ago
      If you need money to prioritize your desires, money is just a workaround for your lack of judgment. If you go this way: the things you really want are the ones that probably a lot of people want too. Then enters the offer/demand relation, and the price you have to pay for it is consequently not connected anymore with its cost. In the end, you pay much more. I do agree we we need to think at the individual level first. I means we have to think out of social/collective convention during this first step. Money is one of it. Desire is not. Let's start with desire, then figure out what we can do with money?
      - icebraining 10y ago
        If you need money to prioritize your desires No, one needs money to prioritize one's desires relative to the availability of resources. Two persons might have the same order of preferences (A > B > C), but one person might rather have (A) alone, while the other prefers to have (B, C). By having an universal credits system, the two can bid on stuff and come out with a good compromise.

canadian_voter 10y ago

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.

flareback 10y ago
Until we learn how to create something out of nothing, there will be no post-scarcity world.
blakeyrat 10y ago
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.
- canadian_voter 10y ago
  Not everyone can get what they want, but certainly everyone gets what they need. Everyone living in mansions? Nope. But is anybody homeless? Nope. It's a trade-off. Many sought-after things are scarce. Starship commissions are scarce. They require hard work and are assigned based on merit. Not just anyone gets the opportunity to explore the edge of space; it takes dedication and sacrifice. The show is certainly influence by the philosophy of Stoicism[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

CuriouslyC 10y ago

The truth is, we have the means now to provide food, medicine and power to the entire world easily. People actually need those things. People don't need widgets, and they've lived meaningful lives for millenia without them. It's only through the deceit of advertising that you think they are necessary. They're nice, but you adapt fairly quickly to life without them.

UK-AL 10y ago
Widget could mean anything. So yes people need widgets. It could be a capital good used for farming.
golergka 10y ago
So, you're going to tell people what they actually need and what they don't? From each by his ability, to each by his needs? This have already been tried you know. Didn't work. At all.