3 ms·

I doubt that "owning large tracts of land for the sake of social status and financial security has diminished over the last few hundred years". Look at the list

I doubt that "owning large tracts of land for the sake of social status and financial security has diminished over the last few hundred years". Look at the lists of billionaires, hectomillionaires, and decamillionaires: a large proportion of them derive their wealth from real estate, certainly enough to make it a top 5 means of capturing wealth in our current system. [1] Perhaps over the next few hundred years what you assert may happen, but much of the world population is still subject to an economic system that richly rewards the original literal rent-seeking behavior on land. I find it ironic that even in intelligent circles like HN, no one really discusses ways to factor out land and shelter expenses. If your payroll is your #1 expense, and the #1 expense of your employees is shelter, then why has so little attention been paid to this lowest of low hanging fruit of expenses? Individuals are generally speaking not rational actors, and I think we might all be surprised at what happens if a post-scarcity reality became feasible. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2012/03/13/how-americas-wealthiest-get-rich/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2012/03/13/how-ameri...

CamperBob2 14y ago
I doubt that "owning large tracts of land for the sake of social status and financial security has diminished over the last few hundred years". In medieval times, you either had land, or you were nothing. There are many more options now. Some of us even (gasp) rent.
- yourapostasy 14y ago
  I would characterize that more as a function of a diversifying and growing economy than a diminishment. The pie got much larger, so land holders' relative position diminished, but their absolute wealth still increased. An acre of land in medieval Paris exchanges for far less wealth than the same acre in 2012 Paris, even though the social status it conveys has diminished. Furthermore, while I like the concept of not owning anything, I suspect that won't be remotely feasible until we engineer energy sources that provide 2+ orders of magnitude more energy than we currently consume, for 2+ orders of magnitude less cost. Holding onto material goods is another way of expressing an economic preference to not have to expend the energy it required to obtain the goods in the first place.

CamperBob2 14y ago

I doubt that "owning large tracts of land for the sake of social status and financial security has diminished over the last few hundred years". In medieval times, you either had land, or you were nothing. There are many more options now. Some of us even (gasp) rent.

yourapostasy 14y ago
I would characterize that more as a function of a diversifying and growing economy than a diminishment. The pie got much larger, so land holders' relative position diminished, but their absolute wealth still increased. An acre of land in medieval Paris exchanges for far less wealth than the same acre in 2012 Paris, even though the social status it conveys has diminished. Furthermore, while I like the concept of not owning anything, I suspect that won't be remotely feasible until we engineer energy sources that provide 2+ orders of magnitude more energy than we currently consume, for 2+ orders of magnitude less cost. Holding onto material goods is another way of expressing an economic preference to not have to expend the energy it required to obtain the goods in the first place.