Ship of Fools: Holding everything in common

Thread: Holding everything in common - what if we have to? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027393

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Supposing there comes a time in the future when everything's routinely hackable and it's impossible to protect anything digitally. Would that be so bad? What would actually happen?

Would currency cease to have value? Or would physical currency (or something else tradeable) become really valuable, while bank balances would be worthless?

Why do we need to be able to store "value" [money] in individual protected "pots" [accounts] to be able to enjoy it?

I'm tying myself up in knots with this thought experiment. Can someone untie me?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Tying. Knots. May we also call you dirty names? Have you a whip?

Sorry, wrong thought experiment.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Here's a useful essay by economist Brad DeLong on the utility of a circulating currency, even one that's not backed by a tangible commodity. The key observation:

quote:
One way into the tangle of understanding why it is wrong is to ask each of us why we are happy accepting money in exchange when we sell useful commodities. Hint: it's not because we are looking forward to going down to the bank, exchanging our bank notes for the little disks of gold usually decorated with pictures of bearded men on one side and allegorical female figures on the other with lettering saying things like "Fecund Augustae" or "Concordia Militum" or "Fides Exercituum" on them, taking our little disks home, and feeling happy looking at them. That's not why we accept money. We accept money because if we don't have any money we have to buy commodities with other commodities, and when we do so we are unlikely to receive the cost of production for what we sell. Have you ever tried to buy a latte at Peets with a copy of Ludwig von Mises's Money and Credit? It does not go well.

The fact is that your wealth is only worth its cost of production if you are liquid -- if you can wait to sell until somebody willing to pay full cost of production comes along, which is not every minute. The use value of money is that it allows you to time your other transactions so that you can realize the full exchange value of what you sell, rather than having to sell it at a discount.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Tying. Knots. May we also call you dirty names? Have you a whip?

Sorry, wrong thought experiment.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Here's a useful essay by economist Brad DeLong on the utility of a circulating currency, even one that's not backed by a tangible commodity. The key observation:

quote:
One way into the tangle of understanding why it is wrong is to ask each of us why we are happy accepting money in exchange when we sell useful commodities. Hint: it's not because we are looking forward to going down to the bank, exchanging our bank notes for the little disks of gold usually decorated with pictures of bearded men on one side and allegorical female figures on the other with lettering saying things like "Fecund Augustae" or "Concordia Militum" or "Fides Exercituum" on them, taking our little disks home, and feeling happy looking at them. That's not why we accept money. We accept money because if we don't have any money we have to buy commodities with other commodities, and when we do so we are unlikely to receive the cost of production for what we sell. Have you ever tried to buy a latte at Peets with a copy of Ludwig von Mises's Money and Credit? It does not go well.

The fact is that your wealth is only worth its cost of production if you are liquid -- if you can wait to sell until somebody willing to pay full cost of production comes along, which is not every minute. The use value of money is that it allows you to time your other transactions so that you can realize the full exchange value of what you sell, rather than having to sell it at a discount.

Civilisation is not possible without currency, so it will likely remain with us.
The value of "protected pots" is the ease of use and safety. Having to make large transactions with hard currency is dangerous.
Electronic storing and transferring of units of currency make complex transaction possible. The banana* you bite, the bike you ride, whatever you are reading this on and the electricity to power it. All possible due to currency.

*Had initially typed the fruit of the Garden, but the iPad's spell check capitalised it! Banana is a better fruit,** better example and more fun to say.

**Well, except for cider.

[ 03. June 2014, 14:53: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Here's a useful essay by economist Brad DeLong on the utility of a circulating currency, even one that's not backed by a tangible commodity. The key observation:

quote:
One way into the tangle of understanding why it is wrong is to ask each of us why we are happy accepting money in exchange when we sell useful commodities. Hint: it's not because we are looking forward to going down to the bank, exchanging our bank notes for the little disks of gold usually decorated with pictures of bearded men on one side and allegorical female figures on the other with lettering saying things like "Fecund Augustae" or "Concordia Militum" or "Fides Exercituum" on them, taking our little disks home, and feeling happy looking at them. That's not why we accept money. We accept money because if we don't have any money we have to buy commodities with other commodities, and when we do so we are unlikely to receive the cost of production for what we sell. Have you ever tried to buy a latte at Peets with a copy of Ludwig von Mises's Money and Credit? It does not go well.

The fact is that your wealth is only worth its cost of production if you are liquid -- if you can wait to sell until somebody willing to pay full cost of production comes along, which is not every minute. The use value of money is that it allows you to time your other transactions so that you can realize the full exchange value of what you sell, rather than having to sell it at a discount.

OK. That's a helpful start. Thank you.

But... if it were impossible to "own" something, because it was impossible to stop other people taking it, wouldn't the concept of "theft" become meaningless too? i.e. I don't care if you hack into my bank account and "steal" all my "money" because if I need some, I will just hack into someone else's.

Nobody would be stealing, as such, because nobody would be intending to permanently deprive anybody of anything. But would the fact that it was impossible to identify some of the money as "mine" mean that money as a whole was less valuable?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But would the fact that it was impossible to identify some of the money as "mine" mean that money as a whole was less valuable?

It would mean that money wouldn't exist - at least not in electronic form. You wouldn't just be talking about money, either - land ownership records are all computerized these days, and would evaporate.

Small societies without money are pretty common - most people don't use money within their families, but effectively hold everything in common, and of course there are monastic environments and communes. The thing these all have in common is that they are small, everyone knows everyone, and there are ways of ensuring that everyone is pulling their own weight.

Commonhold in a large society is rather vulnerable to freeloaders.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Commonhold in a large society is rather vulnerable to freeloaders.

Which is where post-scarcity comes in. We would be all, in effect, free-loaders, and "wealth" would then accrue in non-tangible forms.

Posted by snowgoose (# 4394) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

But... if it were impossible to "own" something, because it was impossible to stop other people taking it, wouldn't the concept of "theft" become meaningless too? i.e. I don't care if you hack into my bank account and "steal" all my "money" because if I need some, I will just hack into someone else's.

Nobody would be stealing, as such, because nobody would be intending to permanently deprive anybody of anything. But would the fact that it was impossible to identify some of the money as "mine" mean that money as a whole was less valuable?

Money is very useful and convenient stuff: it can be turned into so many things. You don't need to store tons of food and barrels of petrol and because you know you can buy it when you need it. The only thing you need to store in large amounts is money. If people steal (or misappropriate or whatever) your money, they are taking away your food and petrol and furniture and medicine and so on.

Sometimes money becoems all but useless. When resources are extremely scarce, inflation can turn a once-viable currency into worthless paper. Then people go back to bartering, or to various forms of thuggery. This system is usually very local: you can't trade shoes in New York for apples in California without some way of transporting them.

If everyone could just hack into others' accounts to get more money then money in that form would become useless and some other form of currency would emerge. We would go back to doing everything off-line, and sending every payment by post.

As lilbudda said upthread, civilization is not possible without currency. True communism never seems to work on a large scale. People are just too selfish and there is only so much stuff to go around.

[crosspost x 2]

[ 03. June 2014, 15:29: Message edited by: snowgoose ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Commonhold in a large society is rather vulnerable to freeloaders.
Which is where post-scarcity comes in. We would be all, in effect, free-loaders, and "wealth" would then accrue in non-tangible forms.

Can you explain further?

My response to Leorning Cniht is that if we were the "Family of Man" we wouldn't see others as free-loaders, any more than I would see my husband as a free-loader if he stopped paid work to focus on raising the children and home-building.

But I don't think that's what you're saying. What's "post-scarcity"?

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by snowgoose:
...there is only so much stuff to go around.

I worry that this is just a plausible lie that I've been brought up to believe. What if there's plenty?

Posted by snowgoose (# 4394) on :

The Family of Man is extremely dysfunctional. Many members of it are greedy, lazy, selfish. Some are cruel.

Posted by snowgoose (# 4394) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I worry that this is just a plausible lie that I've been brought up to believe. What if there's plenty?

Then eventually the population would increase to the point where there would no longer be plenty. Also, what one person sees as plenty another sees as not nearly enough. Who decides what "plenty" means?

[ 03. June 2014, 15:42: Message edited by: snowgoose ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
What's "post-scarcity"?

Essentially, we only have money (and before that, barter) because goods are scarce - limited in availability due to natural scarcity, distance from production, or difficulty of manufacture. The more abundant a good is, the cheaper it becomes, until it becomes so ubiquitous that it is free. The corollary of that is that because of its abundance, it isn't worth manufacturing/transporting any more, and becomes scarce again.

However, in a post-scarcity economy, physical goods are created on demand for no cost. You want a car? You've got a car. You want two cars. You have two cars. So has your neighbour. So has everyone in your neighbourhood. So has everyone who wants two cars. Your car has utility, but no worth. You can't sell it, because you've no one who will buy it. If you tire of your car, or it breaks down, you return it to the VatOfStuff and get a new car. Or a pony. Or a hoverboard. Or whatever. Want to eat steak every night? You can. Steak is as worthless as a car.

However, the chef that cooks a really good steak is in huge demand. How are you going to persuade them to cook for you and your friends, over someone else and their friends. He can't be paid, because you can create as much physical wealth as anyone else. Thus, there have to be intangibles that will act as wealth proxies: political influence, live performances of art, philosophy, law giving, to name a few possibles.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by snowgoose:
...there is only so much stuff to go around.

I worry that this is just a plausible lie that I've been brought up to believe. What if there's plenty?

I think there definitely would be plenty if we'd just bloody share it. Problem is that it's exceedingly hard to force people to share. Even on a very small scale, things like roommate issues are famous. Everyone's had a roommate who didn't do the dishes or couldn't use the common spaces properly. And these are people who have to live with us regularly, so we do have some power over them. How to make everyone in a larger community behave? I am a strong proponent of communal living, and have lived in an intentional community, but I think such things only work when they are small enough that everyone trusts everyone.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

And they only work within the protection of a state which is not communal.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by snowgoose:
...there is only so much stuff to go around.

I worry that this is just a plausible lie that I've been brought up to believe. What if there's plenty?
I think there definitely would be plenty if we'd just bloody share it. Problem is that it's exceedingly hard to force people to share. Even on a very small scale, things like roommate issues are famous. Everyone's had a roommate who didn't do the dishes or couldn't use the common spaces properly. And these are people who have to live with us regularly, so we do have some power over them. How to make everyone in a larger community behave? I am a strong proponent of communal living, and have lived in an intentional community, but I think such things only work when they are small enough that everyone trusts everyone.

And maybe the high rate of divorce tells us that even when people think they trust each other, that trust can easily break down when it comes to the use of shared resources.

Which reminds me of a priest I knew who used to say it's fine for a couple to have separate beds, but not for them to have separate bank accounts. My husband and I don't have a joint account, though I think we would say that there is relatively free flow between our funds. But if I can't even manage to hold everything in common with my husband, why not give it up as a hopeless case?

Except, reverting to the OP, that I'm interested in what would happen not if we chose to, but if we found we *had* to because we weren't able to define what is mine and what is yours. Would that be a better world?

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
What's "post-scarcity"?
Essentially, we only have money (and before that, barter) because goods are scarce - limited in availability due to natural scarcity, distance from production, or difficulty of manufacture. The more abundant a good is, the cheaper it becomes, until it becomes so ubiquitous that it is free. The corollary of that is that because of its abundance, it isn't worth manufacturing/transporting any more, and becomes scarce again.

However, in a post-scarcity economy, physical goods are created on demand for no cost. You want a car? You've got a car. You want two cars. You have two cars. So has your neighbour. So has everyone in your neighbourhood. So has everyone who wants two cars. Your car has utility, but no worth. You can't sell it, because you've no one who will buy it. If you tire of your car, or it breaks down, you return it to the VatOfStuff and get a new car. Or a pony. Or a hoverboard. Or whatever. Want to eat steak every night? You can. Steak is as worthless as a car.

However, the chef that cooks a really good steak is in huge demand. How are you going to persuade them to cook for you and your friends, over someone else and their friends. He can't be paid, because you can create as much physical wealth as anyone else. Thus, there have to be intangibles that will act as wealth proxies: political influence, live performances of art, philosophy, law giving, to name a few possibles.

Thank you. So one way to prepare for our dystopian future would be to hone our performance skills?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Except, reverting to the OP, that I'm interested in what would happen not if we chose to, but if we found we *had* to because we weren't able to define what is mine and what is yours. Would that be a better world?

So no private property? Are we assuming we can walk into anyone's house to see if they're hoarding things? Because otherwise people will definitely hoard.

In theory, I think a truly communal society would be ideal. I just don't see how we could enforce one in this world.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

This is why the mixed economic model of private interests and business, with government on behalf of the people regulating and in some cases doing the business on the behalf of the people, is in my view appropriate. Thus royalties on resources and taxation on profits, with redistribution. Unfortunately, again in my view, the trend since the unfortunate Reaganomics era has been to dismantle the mixed economy in favour of 19th century versions of capitalism.

This had led to the increased pressure on poor countries via the WTO, IMF and FTAs to allow wealthier countries to take resources from poorer ones with conditions favourable to the wealthy countries, to locate their businesses in the poorer countries so they don't have to pay the workers very much nor give them safe conditions and benefits. Which leads me to say that the sharing we are going to be called to do is with the global poor.

I'm reading in the past week about the 1830s and 1840s history of revolutionary movements in Europe where the insurrections (successfully put down, remember Les Misérables?) were said to be about hunger by some, including Marx, and not about politics. It makes me think that the early 21st century terrorism we've seen thus far is likely only a start, and that we will share the earth's resources more equitably or have to get a lot more drones and bombs, be more comfortable with killing many more people both actively and by letting them starve, and to allow further government-corporate intrusions into our privacy and our ideas.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
So one way to prepare for our dystopian future would be to hone our performance skills?

Yes. There would be a transition, gradual or abrupt, a Gift Economy (which is a common way of looking at academia). Those who have the rarest skills and give away the most, command the most respect/control the greatest resources. It also allows for those who simply want to be parasitical on society to be so, at no loss to the whole.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Sorry, should have done this:

WTO - world trade organization
IMF - international monetary fund
FTA - free trade agreement

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

My response to Leorning Cniht is that if we were the "Family of Man" we wouldn't see others as free-loaders, any more than I would see my husband as a free-loader if he stopped paid work to focus on raising the children and home-building.

But if he stopped paid work in order to focus on drinking beer and watching the football, you might well be a bit aggrieved.

IMO, a "post-scarcity society" is a complete fiction. One can certainly imagine a society with a very large energy supply, robots to maintain the infrastructure and each other, and some kind of 3D printing / Star Trek replicator manufacture-on-demand system that would make "stuff" free. In such a society, everybody would have good food, shelter, and nobody would need to work.

But there's a whole bunch of stuff that is fundamentally exclusive. I can't live on a deserted tropical island if you're living on it too. Only one of us can live in the penthouse in the city's tallest building.

Essentially, land will always be scarce, and so requires some kind of scheme for allocating control over it.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
IMO, a "post-scarcity society" is a complete fiction.

Well, yes. It's not even your opinion, it's objective fact. However, as both a concept and an ultimate goal, it's powerful and seductive. Aiming at a post-scarcity society will yield huge dividends on its own (much like aiming for a zero-carbon economy).

quote:
Essentially, land will always be scarce, and so requires some kind of scheme for allocating control over it.

I don't think you understand what technologies that permit a post-scarcity society can do for space travel. I shall leave you puny mortals to your "Earth": I have worlds to conquer.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Civilisation is not possible without currency, so it will likely remain with us.

So, the people who built the pyramids may have lived in cities but they were not civilised. [Confused]

One of the interesting/weird things about the Ancient Egyptians is how long they lasted with an economy based on barter. When they did have a currency later, it was partially notional (e.g. this piece of cloth is worth x deben of gold, those gold earrings weigh x deben, so it is a fair trade).

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Want to eat steak every night? You can. Steak is as worthless as a car.

However, the chef that cooks a really good steak is in huge demand. How are you going to persuade them to cook for you and your friends, over someone else and their friends. He can't be paid, because you can create as much physical wealth as anyone else.

Looking at this from a purely economic perspective the essential assumption is that material goods will be cheap to free, but labor will be costly. In a lot of these scenarios the assumption of mechanization/labor-free production is somewhat haphazard. Taking your example of the steak, the only way it can be "free" in its uncooked form is if we assume that no labor is required to transform cows (or cultured cells) into a raw steak, but that the final step of applying the proper amount of heat will still require a human operator. This seems like a fairly arbitrary assumption of where the labor bottleneck will occur.

The other questionable assumption here is that the only thing we spend money on is physical goods, not services from other people. In other words, the assumption that the chef "can't be paid" assumes that the chef in question will never have the need of the labor of any other person; that he'll never need a plumber or a chiropractor or an oven repairman. If we assume a future need for the labor of others, that is also something money can be used to buy.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Civilisation is not possible without currency, so it will likely remain with us.
So, the people who built the pyramids may have lived in cities but they were not civilised.

One of the interesting/weird things about the Ancient Egyptians is how long they lasted with an economy based on barter. When they did have a currency later, it was partially notional (e.g. this piece of cloth is worth x deben of gold, those gold earrings weigh x deben, so it is a fair trade).

Given that coins were a Lydian invention (yay, Lydia!) of the seventh century BCE, most of pharaonic Egypt would have had to exist without coined currency. That doesn't mean they didn't have currency. For example:

quote:
In one example from the Middle Kingdom, an expedition leader received five hundred loaves of bread a day as his ration. However, large sums such as these were probably not paid out in actual loaves of bread or jars of beer. This would undoubtedly be far too much for the expedition leaders personal consumption. It seems more probable that this sum of bread was actually a unit for measuring commodities, approximating the modern idea of a unit of money, a practice that allowed the ancient Egyptians to save and also to draw against an account of bread and beer.

Using a weight of gold (or other metal) as a standard of worth is also fairly common in Antiquity. Remember, ancient coins were valuable not because they were coins but because they were lumps of precious metal. Stamping them with the royal seal was a guarantee of purity, not an ascription of value like modern fiat currencies. At any rate, I'm not sure why a currency system based on a standard sized loaf of bread qualifies as "barter" (especially when many of the "loaves" traded in large quantities are virtual) but one based on a standard sized quantity of gold qualifies as a cash economy.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't think you understand what technologies that permit a post-scarcity society can do for space travel. I shall leave you puny mortals to your "Earth": I have worlds to conquer.

Doesn't matter. You're welcome to whatever worlds you want, of course, but they're not fungible. A particular vista on a particular planet doesn't exist anywhere else, so we can't all have it. If you have a holiday lodge with the best view over the best seething seas of ammonia anywhere, nobody else has a better one.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

JoannaP;

Sort of. The pre-precious metal period would have still needed a rough agreement on the value of goods. Which is most of what currency is.

ETA: Our civilisation is much larger and more complex than theirs. So it is a different case regardless.

[ 03. June 2014, 18:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't think you understand what technologies that permit a post-scarcity society can do for space travel. I shall leave you puny mortals to your "Earth": I have worlds to conquer.
Doesn't matter. You're welcome to whatever worlds you want, of course, but they're not fungible. A particular vista on a particular planet doesn't exist anywhere else, so we can't all have it. If you have a holiday lodge with the best view over the best seething seas of ammonia anywhere, nobody else has a better one.

Excellent. People who think like you get to stay here. Humanity has a future.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Taking your example of the steak, the only way it can be "free" in its uncooked form is if we assume that no labor is required to transform cows (or cultured cells) into a raw steak, but that the final step of applying the proper amount of heat will still require a human operator. This seems like a fairly arbitrary assumption of where the labor bottleneck will occur.

Yes, it is arbitrary, but it is important. There will be a undeniable premium on human-human interactions.

As to what currency exists, a physical currency based on scarcity is right out. A virtual currency based on scarcity is possible, but we already know how difficult that is to control. What else could we use to keep track of these transactions?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Taking your example of the steak, the only way it can be "free" in its uncooked form is if we assume that no labor is required to transform cows (or cultured cells) into a raw steak, but that the final step of applying the proper amount of heat will still require a human operator. This seems like a fairly arbitrary assumption of where the labor bottleneck will occur.
Yes, it is arbitrary, but it is important. There will be a undeniable premium on human-human interactions.

My question is why there's the assumption that the only human labor required in any production is at the point immediately prior to final consumer. That's an assumption embedded in the idea that steak is free; that there are no labor costs in its production prior to its final preparation. That seems enormously hand-wavey.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As to what currency exists, a physical currency based on scarcity is right out. A virtual currency based on scarcity is possible, but we already know how difficult that is to control. What else could we use to keep track of these transactions?

The current system of fiat currency seems to do pretty well at this. You seem to be under the impression that no one is paid for services rendered these days.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My question is why there's the assumption that the only human labor required in any production is at the point immediately prior to final consumer. That's an assumption embedded in the idea that steak is free; that there are no labor costs in its production prior to its final preparation. That seems enormously hand-wavey.

It is. I don't have a particular problem with that. A fabber can be programmed to turn out stuff it's programmed to turn out. A robot can be programmed to do things with that stuff. All those things are essentially free to the user. Hell, a robot can be designed that'll eat it for you and crap it back into the fabber.

But it's the people that matter, at this hypothetical point in history, more so than at any other. They're released from making things, selling things, repairing things, dealing with stuff. They're free to create.

quote:
The current system of fiat currency seems to do pretty well at this. You seem to be under the impression that no one is paid for services rendered these days.

Not at all. But a vast amount of that money is not there for actual use. It makes itself and is used to keep us indebted. When (if I believe the statistics) 85 people have more wealth than the poorest half of the planet, I baulk at saying it does pretty well at anything.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Is there no possible scenario where everybody might have unfettered access to everybody else's liquid assets while there was still scarcity?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Excellent. People who think like you get to stay here. Humanity has a future.

I think you missed my point. There are a finite number of planets. There are a smaller (and finite, obviously) number of planets that can support life, or can reasonably be terraformed with appropriate technology. There are an even smaller number that are pretty.

Yes, with space travel, land is less scarce than just "Earth", but it's still scarce, and desirable land is still much more scarce than ordinary land.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Is there no possible scenario where everybody might have unfettered access to everybody else's liquid assets while there was still scarcity?

In such a scenario the liquid assets would be literally worthless. Nobody would sell you their property or time in return for something they could just take whenever they wanted. Would you work for a salary of 1,000 litres of air per month? Would you sell me a car for 2,000 blades of grass?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There are a finite number of planets.

Pfft.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

The point is that even in a post-scarcity society, no more than one person can live in the Royal Suite at the London Hilton. It doesn't matter how many other planets there are out there, there's still only one Royal Suite at the London Hilton.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I do understand what you're trying to say, but if that's your only objection... it's not a very good one, is it? Exclusive spatial co-ordinates aside, I can't see much of a downside to shaking off the shackles of our existing economic structure.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
However, in a post-scarcity economy, physical goods are created on demand for no cost. You want a car? You've got a car. You want two cars. You have two cars. So has your neighbour. So has everyone in your neighbourhood. So has everyone who wants two cars. Your car has utility, but no worth. You can't sell it, because you've no one who will buy it. If you tire of your car, or it breaks down, you return it to the VatOfStuff and get a new car. Or a pony. Or a hoverboard. Or whatever. Want to eat steak every night? You can. Steak is as worthless as a car.

However, the chef that cooks a really good steak is in huge demand. How are you going to persuade them to cook for you and your friends, over someone else and their friends. He can't be paid, because you can create as much physical wealth as anyone else. Thus, there have to be intangibles that will act as wealth proxies: political influence, live performances of art, philosophy, law giving, to name a few possibles.
Thank you. So one way to prepare for our dystopian future would be to hone our performance skills?

Dystopian? [Eek!]

I find it hard to come up with anything more utopian, this side of heaven.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I do understand what you're trying to say, but if that's your only objection... it's not a very good one, is it?

It speaks to the inherent competitiveness of humanity. Even in a post-scarcity world where we can have literally anything at the push of a button, we will find some way to rank ourselves on the winner/loser axis. Having (or not having) access to certain exclusive spatial co-ordinates is just one way that could be done.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I do understand what you're trying to say, but if that's your only objection... it's not a very good one, is it?
It speaks to the inherent competitiveness of humanity. Even in a post-scarcity world where we can have literally anything at the push of a button, we will find some way to rank ourselves on the winner/loser axis. Having (or not having) access to certain exclusive spatial co-ordinates is just one way that could be done.

Yes, this is true. But if living a virtuous life was how we ranked ourselves, I would have approximately zero objections as to who got the penthouse suite.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I think if everything stored digitally is routinely hackable, then many people will stop storing their private and other valuable data in that fashion. The world got along for a very long time without digital storage.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
However, in a post-scarcity economy, physical goods are created on demand for no cost. You want a car? You've got a car. You want two cars. You have two cars. So has your neighbour. So has everyone in your neighbourhood. So has everyone who wants two cars. Your car has utility, but no worth. You can't sell it, because you've no one who will buy it. If you tire of your car, or it breaks down, you return it to the VatOfStuff and get a new car. Or a pony. Or a hoverboard. Or whatever. Want to eat steak every night? You can. Steak is as worthless as a car.

However, the chef that cooks a really good steak is in huge demand. How are you going to persuade them to cook for you and your friends, over someone else and their friends. He can't be paid, because you can create as much physical wealth as anyone else. Thus, there have to be intangibles that will act as wealth proxies: political influence, live performances of art, philosophy, law giving, to name a few possibles.
Thank you. So one way to prepare for our dystopian future would be to hone our performance skills?
Dystopian?

I find it hard to come up with anything more utopian, this side of heaven.

I'm not fit for heaven yet, am I? I need a new heart...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, this is true. But if living a virtuous life was how we ranked ourselves, I would have approximately zero objections as to who got the penthouse suite.

I see no reason to even entertain the idea that "a virtuous life" would be the yardstick by which individual success would be measured. Power takes many forms, but virtue and humility don't tend to be included.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I think the main point is being missed here. No matter what the economic situation humanity finds itself in, whether we have property or not, whether there is money or not, is an irrelevance.

Humans will always find a way to obtain and exercise power over others. The economic, political or fiscal conditions will only alter the individuals who manage to successfully claim and exercise power and those who have power exercised over them.

Life isn’t bad because of this or that prevailing economic system, but because of the people in it. There will always be winners and losers, it’s just the yardstick that changes.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, this is true. But if living a virtuous life was how we ranked ourselves, I would have approximately zero objections as to who got the penthouse suite.

I don't think who has the penthouse is about something as arbitrary as who claims to be the higher status. I think, rather, that certain homes (the penthouse, the beachfront home with a gorgeous view of unspoilt beaches etc.) are better - provide more utility for the occupant - than a similar size home with a view of the gasworks.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Humans will always find a way to obtain and exercise power over others.

However, if you think about how we exercise power over others, it's normally in form of the threat of sanctions and the denial of material goods.

If someone has a superabundance of material goods, economic threats become almost meaningless.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think who has the penthouse is about something as arbitrary as who claims to be the higher status. I think, rather, that certain homes (the penthouse, the beachfront home with a gorgeous view of unspoilt beaches etc.) are better - provide more utility for the occupant - than a similar size home with a view of the gasworks.

The point is, if certain homes are better than others then they will be the ones occupied by high-status individuals.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Humans will always find a way to obtain and exercise power over others.
However, if you think about how we exercise power over others, it's normally in form of the threat of sanctions and the denial of material goods.

If someone has a superabundance of material goods, economic threats become almost meaningless.

So it will be physical threats that are used. The stronger people exercise their power over the weaker ones.

You may have all of the steaks you want, but if you want someone to cook them for you, then you need to be able to hit or threaten to hit them or their loved ones unless they get cooking.

What's the difference between "cook me a steak or I won't give you any money" and "cook me a steak or I'll break your arm", except the type of threat and the people involved? Either way someone spends time in the kitchen and somebody else gets a steak.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The point is, if certain homes are better than others then they will be the ones occupied by high-status individuals.

Sure. My point was really in response to Doc Tor's claim that

quote:
But if living a virtuous life was how we ranked ourselves, I would have approximately zero objections as to who got the penthouse suite.

My point is that living in the best house isn't just a status marker - the house is the best house because it has some useful features that other houses don't have (like an exclusive view etc.) So even if status was assigned to virtuous living, particular houses would be more desirable than others (because they are desirable for features that they have, not because they are status markers.)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
What's the difference between "cook me a steak or I won't give you any money" and "cook me a steak or I'll break your arm", except the type of threat and the people involved? Either way someone spends time in the kitchen and somebody else gets a steak.

Can you legally enslave someone now? No. What makes you think you'll be able to do it legally in this hypothetical future? Nothing, except your desire to be able to lord it over someone, anyone...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

There'll be a lot less police officers, for a start.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
What's the difference between "cook me a steak or I won't give you any money" and "cook me a steak or I'll break your arm", except the type of threat and the people involved? Either way someone spends time in the kitchen and somebody else gets a steak.
Can you legally enslave someone now? No. What makes you think you'll be able to do it legally in this hypothetical future? Nothing, except your desire to be able to lord it over someone, anyone...

Yes but it's your desire as well. It's built in. It's a human trait. You just have a different group of people you want to lord it over - the currently wealthy.

In any case if you are discussing a situation so far-fetched (the abolition of money and a complete over-abundant supply of everything) then adding in slavery isn't completely irrelevant. If you want to engage in day-dreaming, then I reserve the right to add in other equally unlikely scenarios.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
What's the difference between "cook me a steak or I won't give you any money" and "cook me a steak or I'll break your arm", except the type of threat and the people involved? Either way someone spends time in the kitchen and somebody else gets a steak.
Can you legally enslave someone now? No. What makes you think you'll be able to do it legally in this hypothetical future? Nothing, except your desire to be able to lord it over someone, anyone...
Yes but it's your desire as well. It's built in. It's a human trait.

Speak for yourself.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Yes but it's your desire as well. It's built in. It's a human trait. You just have a different group of people you want to lord it over - the currently wealthy.

We've walked around this block together before, and I wish you'd stop projecting. I don't envy the currently wealthy, and I wouldn't want to be so in under our current economic system: I believe it would do violence both to me, and to everyone else. Money, for all its faults, does more good when it moves around. Poor people spend proportionally more money than rich people, and very poor people spend it all.

quote:
In any case if you are discussing a situation so far-fetched (the abolition of money and a complete over-abundant supply of everything) then adding in slavery isn't completely irrelevant. If you want to engage in day-dreaming, then I reserve the right to add in other equally unlikely scenarios.

You do have that right. I have the right to laugh at them.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

This discussion seems to be conflating two different scenarios under the rubric of "post-scarcity society". It might help to separate them a bit.

The first is a society where material goods are cheap-to-free but human labor is still a necessary input at some point. For example, you still need a human being to cook your food (steaks or whatever) for you. In economic terms [cost of labor] >> [cost of materials]. Under this scenario the cost of material goods isn't free, but based on the amount of labor involved in extraction and processing. In other words your steak isn't free, its cost is based on the cost of the labor involved in maintaining grasslands, raising and butchering cattle, and transporting cattle and steaks to the necessary locations. Money would still be useful under such a system. Indeed, many modern economies are approaching this point, with the offshoring of certain jobs/industries predicated on the idea that cheap labor in the developing world represents a savings significantly greater than the increased cost of materials or shipping.

The second case is an hypothetical economy where human labor is no longer necessary at any point of the production process. Not only is your steak free, but the cooking process does not require a human chef. This is significantly different than any modern economy.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Yes but it's your desire as well. It's built in. It's a human trait. You just have a different group of people you want to lord it over - the currently wealthy.
We've walked around this block together before, and I wish you'd stop projecting. I don't envy the currently wealthy, and I wouldn't want to be so in under our current economic system: I believe it would do violence both to me, and to everyone else. Money, for all its faults, does more good when it moves around. Poor people spend proportionally more money than rich people, and very poor people spend it all.

Projecting - sounds hippy-dippy to me. No idea what it is.

On your second point, rich people don't keep their money under the bed you know! It's in banks and in investments. Their money moves around just as much as everyone else's. Probably more so as they have more to lend out.

This is all very basic you know. No wonder you can't trust lefties with money stuff.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
On your second point, rich people don't keep their money under the bed you know! It's in banks and in investments. Their money moves around just as much as everyone else's. Probably more so as they have more to lend out.

This is all very basic you know. No wonder you can't trust lefties with money stuff.

That's not what happens to it. It's not spent in the local economy. Little of it is spent in the national economy. Most 'investments' simply draw money to rich people from poor people, via the banks.

Which is why, if you bothered to do some reading, the rich are getting substantially richer, and no matter how hard the poor work, they don't. No wonder you can't trust arch-capitalists with money stuff.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
On your second point, rich people don't keep their money under the bed you know! It's in banks and in investments. Their money moves around just as much as everyone else's. Probably more so as they have more to lend out.

This is all very basic you know.

Well, yes, that's how it works in theory. I feel like adding that according to basic classical economic theory recessions never happen.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
On your second point, rich people don't keep their money under the bed you know! It's in banks and in investments. Their money moves around just as much as everyone else's. Probably more so as they have more to lend out.

Except that Doc Tor was talking about the velocity of circulation, not just about whether or not the money is exchanged at some point or other.

This is quite crucial to monetarism btw, which is your party's favourite economic theory.

[ 07. June 2014, 22:25: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This discussion seems to be conflating two different scenarios under the rubric of "post-scarcity society". It might help to separate them a bit.

Apologies for absence - I stepped away from the thread to row 15.5km for charity (as part of a team of 4 rowing 100km).

As well as the way Croesos analyses it down into two scenarios, the big (bigger?) issue for me is what would (will?) it be like to have to share everything because we no longer have an effective means for identifying something as " mine" or "yours"?

One theory is we all become free-loaders, and continue to entropy.

Another is that it's paradise.

Too simple?

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Having reviewed the original post, I do not see how this thread has turned into a discussion of a post-scarcity society. I refer to:

"everything's routinely hackable and it's impossible to protect anything digitally"

Notice the word "digitally". Only information is in digital form. Yes, that includes the balance in your account, so maybe bank accounts would be a bad bet, but that is far from a post-scarcity society. Your bicycle, for instance, is not a digital object and is not hackable. People could not suddenly, at a whim, obtain a copy of it.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Having reviewed the original post, I do not see how this thread has turned into a discussion of a post-scarcity society.

It's a rather large Doc Tor-al tangent beginning half way down the first page.

If you don't have post-scarcity, commonhold in a large society collapses under the weight of freeloaders. If you don't have a secure bank account record, trade is only possible in person.

You'd have an immediate economic collapse, mass rioting, and a complete failure of civilization in somewhere between 3 days and a week.

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Humans will always find a way to obtain and exercise power over others.
However, if you think about how we exercise power over others, it's normally in form of the threat of sanctions and the denial of material goods.

If someone has a superabundance of material goods, economic threats become almost meaningless.
So it will be physical threats that are used. The stronger people exercise their power over the weaker ones.

That's an interesting clash of two ideologies right there, but I'd say social environments carry plenty of other opportunities for power. They are far from all related to either violence or money. The mental deficiencies that we all carry in insecurity or psychopathy or other difficulties that our minds set us up for and that some evil clever people know how to abuse and deny us alleviation from, creates power over others which would not go away because money did. Furthermore, information is an interesting means of power.

Either way, the idea that a society with solved problems of economics and violence would be without power means is just the left/right scale applied to utopias. And as always, it's both blunt and blind.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This discussion seems to be conflating two different scenarios under the rubric of "post-scarcity society". It might help to separate them a bit.
Apologies for absence - I stepped away from the thread to row 15.5km for charity (as part of a team of 4 rowing 100km).

As well as the way Croesos analyses it down into two scenarios, the big (bigger?) issue for me is what would (will?) it be like to have to share everything because we no longer have an effective means for identifying something as " mine" or "yours"?

One theory is we all become free-loaders, and continue to entropy.

Another is that it's paradise.

Too simple?

Well, under the second scenario (economic output is perpetually sustainable without the input of human labor) it's impossible to be anything except a freeloader. Though I'm not sure the term maintains a distinction in a system where human labor isn't required for anything.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

If digital storage is trivially hacked, it will lose popularity as a currency vault. More likely, it will revert to a series of private networks which provide hard currency arbitrage. This would not be dissimilar to the oldest forms of banking where families with members in widespread locations would cash letters of credit.

The idea of a post scarcity economy seems remote. Ignoring the difficulty of providing the magic technology, there's still a demand for unique products. An art forger can provide a plausible forgery of a work by an artist, but if it is known to be a forgery, it usually has a much lower value. Better copying technology will not change this.

The example of the Victorians is also relevant. Once things became easily produced by machine, there was a creative movement by the likes of William Morris to do things in archaic ways by hand.

[ 10. June 2014, 06:32: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This discussion seems to be conflating two different scenarios under the rubric of "post-scarcity society". It might help to separate them a bit.
Apologies for absence - I stepped away from the thread to row 15.5km for charity (as part of a team of 4 rowing 100km).

As well as the way Croesos analyses it down into two scenarios, the big (bigger?) issue for me is what would (will?) it be like to have to share everything because we no longer have an effective means for identifying something as " mine" or "yours"?

One theory is we all become free-loaders, and continue to entropy.

Another is that it's paradise.

Too simple?
Well, under the second scenario (economic output is perpetually sustainable without the input of human labor) it's impossible to be anything except a freeloader. Though I'm not sure the term maintains a distinction in a system where human labor isn't required for anything.

In the second scenario, we would collectively have to do what was necessary to live comfortable lives, but surely no-one would grudge putting in their little bit of effort, given we all have access to all the wealth of the world? That is to say, we are the family of man, we have a joint bank account, we still need to cook and clean up, but who minds that, when we all have everything we want?

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

I'm sorry, there are few things that get me down so much as cooking and cleaning. If robotization comes and fails to provide these things, I'll consider myself a slave of providing robots with labour rather than the opposite. I could write poems about my hatred for it, but it would be filed under hate speech laws in 39 countries and 45 states. If I had to choose between Shakespeare, winter boots and a cleaning/cooking robot, I'd pick the robot. Please don't make me think of a dystopia where everything is provided except a cure for the worst thing I know in everyday life. That and dishwashing. Your society will quite simply HAVE to incorporate some sort of restaurants and cleaning services, and I expect to provide some sort of hard labour in exchange for it - but it would be so worth it. If it doesn't rid me of cooking, it's not my revolution. Sorry, mate.

Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :

Seconded. I'll do any filing and paperwork you want, but dusting is of the devil.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
In the second scenario, we would collectively have to do what was necessary to live comfortable lives, but surely no-one would grudge putting in their little bit of effort, given we all have access to all the wealth of the world? That is to say, we are the family of man, we have a joint bank account, we still need to cook and clean up, but who minds that, when we all have everything we want?

There are plenty of people right now who don't put any effort into their families, and for whom doing chores is always someone else's problem. And that's when the work is for the benefit of the people they know and (supposedly) love - how likely are they to do any chores that only benefit some other person they don't even know?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

When my husband first suggested that we move in together 37 years ago I said "of course, my proviso is that we always share the chores". He agreed and so it always has been. (Pure romance, I know!)

Now he cooks and I clear up but that's only because he's a far better cook.

My sons both share the chores with their partners without a thought because they grew up with that as the norm.

It's all about expectations imo.

That's true of society too - if we expect equality and work for it then we are more likely to get it, I think.

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

It's not that I want inequality in chores, I want to remove the chores altogether. This reminds me of a case when a Swedish communist MP was asked about her ideal society and replied that she dreamed of a Sweden where all people, regardless of wealth levels, were placed in the same public healthcare waiting line system (as opposed to the ability to skip ahead by private healthcare). As one of the right-wing newspapers pointed out, it seems somewhat lacklustre to dream of a society where everyone stands in waiting lines. Nay, I say unto ye, satirizing good ole' Karl, remove the choreboard and ye'll also remove the chorist!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0