> WHOA, NOW. Time is a zero-sum game. The scarcity of time is not even close to "irrelevant to Capitalism". Economists compare productivity gains as the ability

> WHOA, NOW. Time is a zero-sum game. The scarcity of time is not even close to "irrelevant to Capitalism". Economists compare productivity gains as the ability to produce more widgets in the same amount of time. Once widgets materialize in a box and can be moved immediately via non-human means to whomever needs them, or more likely, simply be removed from the box by the human who wanted the widget, the friction becomes 0. It's no longer about who can get the widget made faster unless you talk about the efficiency of the replicator itself, and that will likely approach a certain baseline point as well. The thing is the further along you go on this curve, the faster all of these things will work to improve each other. Why have a prepackaged meal when you could have the exact molecular composition of a fantastic soufflé made by a five star chef in Paris, instantly, for the cost of running your replicator for 10 seconds? Why take a helicopter to avoid traffic when automated streets have made the few commutes that remain extremely fast? Who cares about shipping you things when the product you bought materializes next to your oven? You're talking incremental improvements in the next 10 years. That's not going to do anything I've discussed. I'm talking the theoretical and in my mind, inevitable conclusion to capitalism: that all goods and services are worthless; not because we don't need them, but because they don't cost us anything.