3 ms·

> housing are extremely plentiful ...and therefore extremely cheap? Instead it's extremely expensive and therefore exclusionary. So it is healthcare. Polls cl

> housing are extremely plentiful ...and therefore extremely cheap? Instead it's extremely expensive and therefore exclusionary. So it is healthcare. Polls clearly show that younger generations feel very unsure about their work, their ability to save, buy a home end even retire and have a pension. The complete opposite of post-scarcity.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
Yes, that's my point. In economics a scarce resource is a limited resource. Defining post-scarcity as an abundance of goods is a bad definition, unless the goods are truly unlimited. Neither us nor 24th century Star Trek has post-scarcity. Star Trek TNG has a post-capitalist, non-monetary economy, but it's not post-scarcity.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  Star Trek TNG is very clearly post-scarcity. It fits the definition completely, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy --- Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely --- Post-scarcity does not require all goods/services to be infinitely abundant.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    In the US today a bushel of wheat (60 pounds) is worth $7.50 and contains about a month's worth of calories, for about half an hour worth of the average American's labour. Chinese factories produce widgets for pennies. Under that definiton either both the 24th and the 22nd centuries are post-scarcity or neither are. Trekonomics writer Manu Saadia has a much better definition: "Post-scarcity is not so much a matter of material wealth or natural bounty, but an organizational option for society". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      > Under that definiton either both the 24th and the 22nd centuries are post-scarcity or neither are. Not at all. People need much more that wheat and widgets. > "Post-scarcity is not so much a matter of material wealth or natural bounty, but an organizational option for society". No doubt. Also, a lot of consumption and therefore scarcity is induced by culture.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > People need much more that wheat and widgets Infinitely more, according to orthodox economics, which is why post-scarcity is not a coherent concept within the framework of orthodox economics. The idea that there is a point of finite abundance where the basic relations of economics break down is, at best, highly speculative and completely undemonstrated.
        bryanlarsen 5y ago
        A significant portion of our economy is post-scarcity. Software, movies, tv, books, video games are all non-scarce goods forced to fit into a scarce framework through IP law. They are distributed horribly inefficiently as a result. The replicator would transform most physical goods into IP so perhaps a better economy would be structured around efficient and equitable IP creation and distribution, with the few remaining scarce goods hacked into the economy similar to how copyright hacks non-scarce goods into ours. But there's a flaw in that previous sentence. The replicator uses energy to operate, and that's still a scarce good, even in the 24th. In the 22nd, an iPhone is >95% IP, yet its price is primarily set by the value of the scarce components in an iPhone.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > A significant portion of our economy is post-scarcity. No, it's not. The economy is the system of distribution of scarce resources. Anything that is actually post-scarcity isn't part of it. > Software, movies, tv, books, video games are all non-scarce goods forced to fit into a scarce framework through IP law. No, they aren't. They are goods based around something with a high initial fixed cost and a low marginal cost. IP law exists to incentivize people paying the fixed costs. That's not post-scarcity. > The replicator would transform most physical goods into IP It might change most novel physical goods to having more of their costs as fixed costs, but high initial fixed costs are already a significant thing for novel physical goods and already addressed by IP law. > In the 22nd, an iPhone is >95% IP The 22nd is as much speculative future (or fiction) as the 24th.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

Yes, that's my point. In economics a scarce resource is a limited resource. Defining post-scarcity as an abundance of goods is a bad definition, unless the goods are truly unlimited. Neither us nor 24th century Star Trek has post-scarcity. Star Trek TNG has a post-capitalist, non-monetary economy, but it's not post-scarcity.

goodpoint 5y ago
Star Trek TNG is very clearly post-scarcity. It fits the definition completely, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy --- Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely --- Post-scarcity does not require all goods/services to be infinitely abundant.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  In the US today a bushel of wheat (60 pounds) is worth $7.50 and contains about a month's worth of calories, for about half an hour worth of the average American's labour. Chinese factories produce widgets for pennies. Under that definiton either both the 24th and the 22nd centuries are post-scarcity or neither are. Trekonomics writer Manu Saadia has a much better definition: "Post-scarcity is not so much a matter of material wealth or natural bounty, but an organizational option for society". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    > Under that definiton either both the 24th and the 22nd centuries are post-scarcity or neither are. Not at all. People need much more that wheat and widgets. > "Post-scarcity is not so much a matter of material wealth or natural bounty, but an organizational option for society". No doubt. Also, a lot of consumption and therefore scarcity is induced by culture.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > People need much more that wheat and widgets Infinitely more, according to orthodox economics, which is why post-scarcity is not a coherent concept within the framework of orthodox economics. The idea that there is a point of finite abundance where the basic relations of economics break down is, at best, highly speculative and completely undemonstrated.
      - bryanlarsen 5y ago
        A significant portion of our economy is post-scarcity. Software, movies, tv, books, video games are all non-scarce goods forced to fit into a scarce framework through IP law. They are distributed horribly inefficiently as a result. The replicator would transform most physical goods into IP so perhaps a better economy would be structured around efficient and equitable IP creation and distribution, with the few remaining scarce goods hacked into the economy similar to how copyright hacks non-scarce goods into ours. But there's a flaw in that previous sentence. The replicator uses energy to operate, and that's still a scarce good, even in the 24th. In the 22nd, an iPhone is >95% IP, yet its price is primarily set by the value of the scarce components in an iPhone.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > A significant portion of our economy is post-scarcity. No, it's not. The economy is the system of distribution of scarce resources. Anything that is actually post-scarcity isn't part of it. > Software, movies, tv, books, video games are all non-scarce goods forced to fit into a scarce framework through IP law. No, they aren't. They are goods based around something with a high initial fixed cost and a low marginal cost. IP law exists to incentivize people paying the fixed costs. That's not post-scarcity. > The replicator would transform most physical goods into IP It might change most novel physical goods to having more of their costs as fixed costs, but high initial fixed costs are already a significant thing for novel physical goods and already addressed by IP law. > In the 22nd, an iPhone is >95% IP The 22nd is as much speculative future (or fiction) as the 24th.