4 ms·
Unfortunately, many resources are finite; for example, there is a finite amount of land, and in many places, society has for quite some time been about extracti
by A1kmm 14y ago
Unfortunately, many resources are finite; for example, there is a finite amount of land, and in many places, society has for quite some time been about extracting more value from the same resources, rather than being a case of the resources being there but with insufficient labour to exploit them.
Many people in urban environments cannot afford their own island of land to produce food on; they don't own the enough means of production to support themselves even if they supply the labour themselves, so they are obligated to work for someone who has the capital already (the 'gatekeepers') on whatever oppressive terms they offer to obtain the minimum needed to survive. As a result, the next generation of gatekeepers hold an even greater proportion of the wealth.
Economic problems arise when the gatekeepers no longer need everyone to supply everyone with everything they need and want - now those who aren't gatekeepers find that they cannot get a job, and they don't have the capital to create a job.
Some will try to 'gate jump' - e.g. take a revolutionary idea that is highly profitable, bootstrap it on a shoestring, and become a gatekeeper themselves. However, this is not a scalable model for the whole population, since it relies on luck and there is intense competition among potential gatejumpers and between gatejumpers and enterprises run by existing gatekeepers (who have the resources to crush gatejumpers if they become a threat).
Ultimately, I think the only solution will be some form of income redistribution scheme; perhaps it would work best if the government made it a condition of the income redistribution scheme that beneficiaries work on creating and discovering things, such as science, art, public interest software, civil engineering projects and so on (essentially creating a larger government sector that produces things that don't have a commercial model but benefit society at large, employing the surplus people that are not needed to produce what is needed commercially).
- jacob019 14y ago"income redistribution scheme" Ones views on this tends to be religious, as I am certain your perspective could not be swayed by any logic, nor can mine. Do you live in America like me? Redistribution schemes move power from producers to bureaucrats, who are notoriously bad with it. This has been tried repeatedly with the same results every time. There are two kinds of people, people who happen, and people who things happen to. I choose to be the former. We are not limited by finite resources, we are resources.
- aspensmonster 14y ago>There are two kinds of people, people who happen, and people who things happen to. I choose to be the former. We are all both. Nobody gets to "choose" to be one or the other.
- jacob019 14y agoTrue, but you can choose which defines you.
- smsm42 14y ago>>>> As a result, the next generation of gatekeepers hold an even greater proportion of the wealth. You making a mistake here assuming it is always the same people (or groups of people) holding the wealth. Think about this: if the average height of pupils in 2nd grade is not increasing, does it mean we're turning into the nation of dwarves? Probably not, since people grow after 2nd grade, and they may grow faster than ever before for all we know. In fact, if they did grow faster than ever before, then relative height of the 2nd grader would decrease (since adults are higher now) giving us much cause for alarm for the height of our nation, if we don't understand the meaning of statistics. Imagine now we had a country where people started their life pretty poor and then after working all their life, they had a little money. Now imagine some genius in that country discovers a secret that allows every 70-year-old, if he follows his patented strategy, to become a millionaire. Would we observe the gap between poor and rich grow? Probably yes. Would the actual people be worse off because of that? Not really, since the same person that is poor now has big chance to be a millionaire if he gets to 70, and the situation of people that are currently poor is not worse off. Of course, real life is much more complex, I am just illustrating how misapplying statistics can lead to wrong conclusion. >>>> essentially creating a larger government sector that produces things that don't have a commercial model but benefit society at large Many of the things larger government sector produces benefits nobody but very narrow slice of people enjoying direct transfers from the government. The welfare of the rest is impeded by the incessant stream of regulations, demands and restrictions coming from ever increasing bureaucracy. It would be more efficient for the economy if these people would retire at 18, and probably a lot cheaper too.