|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Holding everything in common - what if we have to?
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Tying. Knots. May we also call you dirty names? Have you a whip?
Sorry, wrong thought experiment.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Tying. Knots. May we also call you dirty names? Have you a whip?
Sorry, wrong thought experiment.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
snowgoose
Silly goose
# 4394
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Lord, what can the harvest hope for, if not for the care of the Reaper Man? --Terry Pratchett
Save a Siamese!
Posts: 3868 | From: Tidewater Virginia | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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"?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
snowgoose
Silly goose
# 4394
|
Posted
The Family of Man is extremely dysfunctional. Many members of it are greedy, lazy, selfish. Some are cruel.
--------------------
Lord, what can the harvest hope for, if not for the care of the Reaper Man? --Terry Pratchett
Save a Siamese!
Posts: 3868 | From: Tidewater Virginia | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
snowgoose
Silly goose
# 4394
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Lord, what can the harvest hope for, if not for the care of the Reaper Man? --Terry Pratchett
Save a Siamese!
Posts: 3868 | From: Tidewater Virginia | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
And they only work within the protection of a state which is not communal.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Sorry, should have done this:
WTO - world trade organization
IMF - international monetary fund
FTA - free trade agreement
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
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]](confused.gif)
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).
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Is there no possible scenario where everybody might have unfettered access to everybody else's liquid assets while there was still scarcity?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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!]](eek.gif)
I find it hard to come up with anything more utopian, this side of heaven.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
