3 ms·

the problem with this scenario is that it does not correctly evaluate the dynamic nature of "wealth". Money has exactly one use, and that's the fact that you ca

by ouid 10y ago

the problem with this scenario is that it does not correctly evaluate the dynamic nature of "wealth". Money has exactly one use, and that's the fact that you can give it to people in exchange for things. The value of money itself falls in proportion to its concentration.

Clubber 10y ago
Could you elaborate? I was thinking along the lines of money as it relates to Maslow's triangle. The more money you have (or skills that equate to money) the higher you can go. Money is freedom, money is self esteem (for many), money is power. Lack of money is imprisonment, despair and weakness to even protect yourself from predators (metaphorically speaking). If 70% of the population is stuck on the first rung, nasty things are going to happen. Once creating automation can itself be automated, that will jump to 90-95%. For many, money is survival. It's just a convenient instrument to trade. If you are unable to make or have money, you are unable to accomplish anything you can't do by yourself (this includes shelter and sustenance which requires land). Also, wealth concentration globally is a lot different from wealth concentration nationally. In other words, if we follow globalization as it's been seen in the US recently, the owners can easily sell goods to offshore markets while neglecting the local labor market, allowing them to further diminish. The wealth class can (and do) simply pay the government for protection (police, imprisonment, military, etc). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs Personally, I'm not so sure a living wage is enough to keep the population at bay. People need something to climb up Maslow's triangle that money is only a prerequisite for. People still need a feeling of accomplishment.
marmot777 10y ago
I think you're saying that money does not ipsofacto have value, it's valuable because we agree to that value and can exchange it for items with real value? Sure, so this program won't protect anyone from a famine but are shortages usually the issue?

by ouid 10y ago

Clubber 10y ago

Could you elaborate? I was thinking along the lines of money as it relates to Maslow's triangle. The more money you have (or skills that equate to money) the higher you can go. Money is freedom, money is self esteem (for many), money is power. Lack of money is imprisonment, despair and weakness to even protect yourself from predators (metaphorically speaking). If 70% of the population is stuck on the first rung, nasty things are going to happen. Once creating automation can itself be automated, that will jump to 90-95%. For many, money is survival. It's just a convenient instrument to trade. If you are unable to make or have money, you are unable to accomplish anything you can't do by yourself (this includes shelter and sustenance which requires land). Also, wealth concentration globally is a lot different from wealth concentration nationally. In other words, if we follow globalization as it's been seen in the US recently, the owners can easily sell goods to offshore markets while neglecting the local labor market, allowing them to further diminish. The wealth class can (and do) simply pay the government for protection (police, imprisonment, military, etc). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs Personally, I'm not so sure a living wage is enough to keep the population at bay. People need something to climb up Maslow's triangle that money is only a prerequisite for. People still need a feeling of accomplishment.

marmot777 10y ago

I think you're saying that money does not ipsofacto have value, it's valuable because we agree to that value and can exchange it for items with real value? Sure, so this program won't protect anyone from a famine but are shortages usually the issue?