3 ms·
The problem I see is nearly every nation's economic policy is forced inflation. Government debt, bonds, the stock market, retirement accounts, banking, GDP grow
by AJ007 13y ago
The problem I see is nearly every nation's economic policy is forced inflation. Government debt, bonds, the stock market, retirement accounts, banking, GDP growth -- all have a deep reliance on continual inflation.
GDP juicing inflation is on a collision course with technology. Moore's law or not, science and technology advance by making things cheaper at an exponential scale - computational power, DNA sequencing, etc. As business now becomes closely integrated to science and technology now deflationary forces are being harnessed.
I suppose there are three views on fighting poverty. Reality likely is a mix of the last two. One sees billions of people consuming at a first-world level. Obviously impossible. The second sees the worlds population decreased dramatically. That is somewhere between disturbing and terrifying. The third involves a massive deflation in the cost of living by providing goods and services extremely cheaply (and I would also add sustainably.)
That third path will be a major shock to those in the first world who believed their skill sets made them members of the world's 1%.
- tokenizer 13y agoGood points. The main differences I think between a sustainable economy and unsustainable one is between our Bagehotian Banking model versus a more stable Mises Banking model. Link to an article that compares them in detail: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ca/2008/10/misesian-explanation-of-bank-crisis.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ca/2008/10/misesian...
- humanrebar 13y ago> who believed their skill sets made them members of the world's 1% To be fair to first-worlders, there is also the idea that stability, peace, justice, and honesty pay big dividends. That is in contrast to chaos, war, corruption, and mistrust. That is to say that even if living was essentially free and everyone was equally talented, places that have significant problems with political turmoil, crime, war, or corruption would still be comparatively worse-off. EDIT: I'm not saying people who live in war-torn places deserve it. I am saying that giving them Star Trek replicators probably won't transform their communities into prosperous places.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> That is to say that even if living was essentially free and everyone was equally talented, places that have significant problems with political turmoil, crime, war, or corruption would still be comparatively worse-off. You seem to think that political turmoil, crime, war, and corruption aren't things to which to inequality (both local and global) contributes, just things which produce inequality. That is something of an unusual position.
- humanrebar 13y agoThat is an unusual position, and it's certainly not mine. I do think poverty and inequality contribute to conflict, but I also think there will be obviously struggling people and communities even in a post-scarcity world... but due to other factors, probably things like tribalism, bigotry, politics, crime, and so on.