5 ms·

It's so strange. First the article explains in Star Trek land most people don't need to work and don't need to buy things because production is essentially free

by erikb 11y ago

It's so strange. First the article explains in Star Trek land most people don't need to work and don't need to buy things because production is essentially free. But in the end he argues that making production more and more free people won't be able to afford to buy them. What about the not buying part?

x5n1 11y ago
Imagine a machine that gives you whatever you want that can reasonably be produced. Imagine a world with infinite resources. Economics exists due to scarcity. If there is no scarcity, then everyone can have whatever they want, whenever and wherever they want. Robots will extract the raw resources, build it, and deliver it to you wherever you want them to. There will be no sales. There will be no excess. Just what is needed whenever it is needed.
- erikb 11y ago
  Yes, that's the Star Trek vision he explains in the beginning. This doesn't answer the question of why the author in the end of his argument suddenly says that "Robots [...] [delivering] it to you wherever you want" would result in job/money problems. Logic would say that with the need for trade there is no need for money and with robots producing everything for you there is no need for you to work.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    Well if you don't work you can't get money. So if there are still other economic activities for which you need money, not supplied by the machine then you are out of luck.
    - eru 11y ago
      Just go for a European style social security net. Problem solved.
calibraxis 11y ago
Because we have the wrong social structure. Humanity is sufficiently advanced that our problems are basically solved problems. But our methods of organization keep us from applying the solutions, except under heavy constraints. For example, we could have access to every book and video ever published. The history of human thought. And creators could be compensated. But our systems do not allow this. Underneath it all is violence; attempt to act as if it weren’t the case. Openly share books and movies you’ve experienced. An armed bureaucrat will come after you.
- tormeh 11y ago
  To be fair to the armed bureaucrats, in that scenario no creator is being compensated. But yes, our problems are now mostly man-made.
  - calibraxis 11y ago
    True! That was just an easy experiment anyone can use to verify for themself that violence holds the system together.
- pmontra 11y ago
  If/when production is free you don't even need to compensate the creators. They can get whatever they want, like any other guy, and they'll create only when they feel like it and not (say) once per year to pay bills and buy stuff. However there are goods that are scarce by definition. Example: that house on the beach you've been dreaming of. Even if you don't mind getting a different one (maybe in a different place) there will be only a finite number of houses on the beach all over the world. So, even in that kind of society we'll need something similar to money to get access to scarce goods. Hopefully that will be linked to the value or the social stand of a person. We almost always measured that as price times the number of sold items but there are zillions of other possible metrics, especially if the price is zero. It could be who has the biggest free gun but that's undesirable, so probably some form of police will be necessary.
  - norea-armozel 11y ago

by erikb 11y ago

x5n1 11y ago

Imagine a machine that gives you whatever you want that can reasonably be produced. Imagine a world with infinite resources. Economics exists due to scarcity. If there is no scarcity, then everyone can have whatever they want, whenever and wherever they want. Robots will extract the raw resources, build it, and deliver it to you wherever you want them to. There will be no sales. There will be no excess. Just what is needed whenever it is needed.

erikb 11y ago
Yes, that's the Star Trek vision he explains in the beginning. This doesn't answer the question of why the author in the end of his argument suddenly says that "Robots [...] [delivering] it to you wherever you want" would result in job/money problems. Logic would say that with the need for trade there is no need for money and with robots producing everything for you there is no need for you to work.
- x5n1 11y ago
  Well if you don't work you can't get money. So if there are still other economic activities for which you need money, not supplied by the machine then you are out of luck.
  - eru 11y ago
    Just go for a European style social security net. Problem solved.

calibraxis 11y ago

Because we have the wrong social structure. Humanity is sufficiently advanced that our problems are basically solved problems. But our methods of organization keep us from applying the solutions, except under heavy constraints. For example, we could have access to every book and video ever published. The history of human thought. And creators could be compensated. But our systems do not allow this. Underneath it all is violence; attempt to act as if it weren’t the case. Openly share books and movies you’ve experienced. An armed bureaucrat will come after you.

tormeh 11y ago
To be fair to the armed bureaucrats, in that scenario no creator is being compensated. But yes, our problems are now mostly man-made.
- calibraxis 11y ago
  True! That was just an easy experiment anyone can use to verify for themself that violence holds the system together.
pmontra 11y ago
If/when production is free you don't even need to compensate the creators. They can get whatever they want, like any other guy, and they'll create only when they feel like it and not (say) once per year to pay bills and buy stuff. However there are goods that are scarce by definition. Example: that house on the beach you've been dreaming of. Even if you don't mind getting a different one (maybe in a different place) there will be only a finite number of houses on the beach all over the world. So, even in that kind of society we'll need something similar to money to get access to scarce goods. Hopefully that will be linked to the value or the social stand of a person. We almost always measured that as price times the number of sold items but there are zillions of other possible metrics, especially if the price is zero. It could be who has the biggest free gun but that's undesirable, so probably some form of police will be necessary.
- norea-armozel 11y ago