4 ms·

This is a lie. The world has enough resources to feed, clothe, and house everyone. We've chose to build a system that does not. Perhaps you find that defensi

This is a lie. The world has enough resources to feed, clothe, and house everyone. We've chose to build a system that does not. Perhaps you find that defensible, perhaps you find that appalling, but argue that position, not one that isn't true.

leetcrew 6y ago
> The world has enough resources to feed, clothe, and house everyone. this is kind of reductive claim. in one sense, it's trivially true that the earth has more raw resources than humans can consume even over the course of centuries. AFAIK it's also true that, under the current system of organization, the global economy produces enough finished goods to feed, clothe, and house everyone (though people often bring up logistical caveats here, eg, distributing stuff in places where there are no paved roads or airfields). the real question here is whether we would still have that quantity of finished goods under a different system of organization with different incentives. to be clear, I don't discount the possibility that we might have even more! but it seems more likely to me that people would simply produce less stuff if they didn't get to keep the surplus by default.
- lostcolony 6y ago
  Just like how that increase in marginal tax rate prevents anyone from climbing into the upper tax brackets (and why we never had millionaires back when the top bracket was > 90%), eh? Of course people can keep the surplus. Some of it. But we're a far, far cry from the point where people will stop working when only getting a percentage of their labor's worth (or their parent's labor's worth, as is often the case).
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    > and why we never had millionaires back when the top bracket was > 90% some caveats apply to this offhand quip (very different tax laws and perhaps even widespread evasion meant almost no one was paying an effective tax of 90%, regardless of actual income). I suspect you know this. I'm sure there's a lot of slack in the tax brackets. I doubt we are close to a laffer curve inflection point. all I'm saying is I'm not convinced by the style of argument that goes "we already have enough food for everyone; we just need to radically reorganize the economy and then no one will go hungry!". more analysis is needed.
  - sriram_sun 6y ago
    > and why we never had millionaires back when the top bracket was > 90% Over 20% of the money in circulation in the US was printed last year. i.e. the pot is much bigger now. Also, while tax rates were high back then, loopholes were proportionately larger!
ctdonath 6y ago
We only have that much because of the incentive to produce. Redistribute, by compulsion, the fruits of one’s labors and most will soon stop laboring. I may be able to support >10, but compel me to and my productivity will plummet.
- mandmandam 6y ago
  "compel me to and my productivity will plummet." What you call incentive is really compulsion, just of a more extreme form.
criticaljudge 6y ago
Sustainable resources? Food production relies heavily on fossil fuels, for example. But I suspect the same people who make that claim you make also make the claim that it would be easy to solve the climate crisis, we'd just have to act more sensibly.
inglor_cz 6y ago
"We've chose to build a system that does not." The kind of poverty where you starve and have to wear rags is becoming rare even in Africa. From this point of view, the system has clearly worked and the pendulum even went too far, with obesity becoming a serious problem in places that aren't typically considered rich (Mexico, Brazil). Housing is a different problem. We have a housing crisis because many people want to live in a few select urban hotspots of the world.
idrios 6y ago
This statement reads to me the same as something like "Computers have the resources to find the cure for cancer, but we've chosen not to find that cure." You're using the word "chosen" as if we know how to build the system you're describing. Our understanding of technology is sufficiently advanced to build a system that feeds, clothes and houses everyone, but our understanding of social sciences is not there yet.

leetcrew 6y ago

> The world has enough resources to feed, clothe, and house everyone. this is kind of reductive claim. in one sense, it's trivially true that the earth has more raw resources than humans can consume even over the course of centuries. AFAIK it's also true that, under the current system of organization, the global economy produces enough finished goods to feed, clothe, and house everyone (though people often bring up logistical caveats here, eg, distributing stuff in places where there are no paved roads or airfields). the real question here is whether we would still have that quantity of finished goods under a different system of organization with different incentives. to be clear, I don't discount the possibility that we might have even more! but it seems more likely to me that people would simply produce less stuff if they didn't get to keep the surplus by default.

lostcolony 6y ago
Just like how that increase in marginal tax rate prevents anyone from climbing into the upper tax brackets (and why we never had millionaires back when the top bracket was > 90%), eh? Of course people can keep the surplus. Some of it. But we're a far, far cry from the point where people will stop working when only getting a percentage of their labor's worth (or their parent's labor's worth, as is often the case).
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > and why we never had millionaires back when the top bracket was > 90% some caveats apply to this offhand quip (very different tax laws and perhaps even widespread evasion meant almost no one was paying an effective tax of 90%, regardless of actual income). I suspect you know this. I'm sure there's a lot of slack in the tax brackets. I doubt we are close to a laffer curve inflection point. all I'm saying is I'm not convinced by the style of argument that goes "we already have enough food for everyone; we just need to radically reorganize the economy and then no one will go hungry!". more analysis is needed.
- sriram_sun 6y ago
  > and why we never had millionaires back when the top bracket was > 90% Over 20% of the money in circulation in the US was printed last year. i.e. the pot is much bigger now. Also, while tax rates were high back then, loopholes were proportionately larger!

ctdonath 6y ago

We only have that much because of the incentive to produce. Redistribute, by compulsion, the fruits of one’s labors and most will soon stop laboring. I may be able to support >10, but compel me to and my productivity will plummet.

mandmandam 6y ago
"compel me to and my productivity will plummet." What you call incentive is really compulsion, just of a more extreme form.

criticaljudge 6y ago

Sustainable resources? Food production relies heavily on fossil fuels, for example. But I suspect the same people who make that claim you make also make the claim that it would be easy to solve the climate crisis, we'd just have to act more sensibly.

inglor_cz 6y ago

"We've chose to build a system that does not." The kind of poverty where you starve and have to wear rags is becoming rare even in Africa. From this point of view, the system has clearly worked and the pendulum even went too far, with obesity becoming a serious problem in places that aren't typically considered rich (Mexico, Brazil). Housing is a different problem. We have a housing crisis because many people want to live in a few select urban hotspots of the world.

idrios 6y ago

This statement reads to me the same as something like "Computers have the resources to find the cure for cancer, but we've chosen not to find that cure." You're using the word "chosen" as if we know how to build the system you're describing. Our understanding of technology is sufficiently advanced to build a system that feeds, clothes and houses everyone, but our understanding of social sciences is not there yet.