World, Writing, Wealth discussion
Wealth & Economics
>
Is abundance possible?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Nik
(new)
Dec 08, 2017 09:51AM
With technological progress, multiple harvesting and other advances of our era, abundance doesn't sound exclusively Utopian anymore. Will we all have huge 3d printers in the end/pneumatic delivery system and have any material goods at our wish or even if it's technically possible it'll never become free-for-all? What do you think?
reply
|
flag
Absolutely. And additive manufacturing (aka. 3D printing) technology is only the beginning. When nanofabrication becomes a reality - because we finally have nanorobots! - we will be able to manufacture just about anything from anything else. Scarcity will become obsolete, and with it, the basis of all previous economies. And inequality itself will be gone, at least as far as we know it now. Again, I am reminded of what Orwell said. He basically asserted that totalitarianism in the 20th century was a response to the fact that equality was no longer a Utopian dream, but a real possibility that was finally within reach. I imagine those would-be dictators of the future will have to find new and interesting ways in order to dominate people.
Honestly... probably just get rid of it. I imagine currency, per se, will consist of people just working for the sake of distinction and to fatten their resumes. I also imagine that a person's measure will be determined as part of an algorithm - a reputation ranking, if you will. Then again, resources will always need to be quantified, so its likely we'll have some kind of coded credit system for a long time to come.
I would say that, technically, abundance is already here, in the sense that we grow and manufacture more than enough to feed, clothe, and house the world. The crime is that enough food to end hunger is wasted because it can't be sold to enrich someone. And material goods are designed to become obsolete rather than designed to last, so we manufacture more than we could ever need only to junk most of it after a criminally short useful life.
Technology is not the issue. Greed is.
/rant
*Crawls off the regain breath*
Matthew wrote: "Honestly... probably just get rid of it. I imagine currency, per se, will consist of people just working for the sake of distinction and to fatten their resumes. I also imagine that a person's meas..."I do not see the disappearance of monetary systems. Your assumption of 'plenty for all,' once the availability of mass nano-scale manufacturing becomes feasible misses the point that those who are already at the top of our society - do not want to flatten the hierarchy.
They will take action to block it, co-opt it, control it, subvert it, all to ensure their ongoing position as 'lords of the universe.'
Graeme wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Honestly... probably just get rid of it. I imagine currency, per se, will consist of people just working for the sake of distinction and to fatten their resumes. I also imagine that..."Not true at all. I already said that the "would-be dictators of the future will have to find new and interesting ways in order to dominate people." Nevertheless, the entire basis of hierachy is based on scarcity. Once you eliminate that, what recourse will those on the top have?
We've already seen how existing hierarchical structures were overthrown based on a fundamental shift in the means of production - i.e. agrarian giving way to rural, causing the fall of the landed gentry in favor of the "bourgeoisie". I imagine we will see much the same here, and a rise of tyrannies that are much more distributed in nature.
Yep, that's exactly the question - even if we reach the threshold of abundance wouldn't those who lead the -now -ongoing material race, resist the collapse of materially motivated societal construction?On a smaller scale and don't know whether it's true, but I hear opinions that cars, for example, would've switched to alternative energy sources a long time ago, were it not for oil and gas lobby's interests
Matthew wrote: "We've already seen how existing hierarchical structures were overthrown based on a fundamental shift in the means of production - i.e. agrarian giving way to rural, causing the fall of the landed gentry in favor of the "bourgeoisie". I imagine we will see much the same here, and a rise of tyrannies that are much more distributed in nature. ..."The frameworks of control survived those transitions, what changed was the mechanisms of value extraction.
Let's take the UK for example.
Landed gentry and tenant farmers. The farmer does not own the land and pays a tithe/rent to the land owner. The value of the farmer's labour is sent from the farmer to the landowner and the landowner gets paid first. I.e. the landowner 'owns,' the value of the farmer's labour,
Fast Forward a few centuries, and the vast majority of the population has moved from the land to the cities, and the instantiated form of the monetary system has moved from gold to a debt based fiat that is loaned into existence.
The value of labour is no longer extracted from serfs working the fields and given to the owners of the land, it is extracted from serfs working in offices and given to the creditors by the mechanism of debt interest.
The monetary system exists to transfer labour value which is a good thing as it allows us to transact with each other. However, the system itself enables the entrenchment of hierarchy between debt serfs and credit lords.
It doesn't matter if you are personally debt free, I'm sure your living in a country with debts with your name on them and the rent will be paid one way or another.
With regard to hierarchy and scarcity - it's a fair point (but I think lacking in completeness, as there are a lot of people who seem to have no capacity to live/think outside a hierarchical structure), but what is to stop entrenched power elites enforcing scarcity through control of access to novel means of production.
For example, say robots are making just about everything, but all the robots/high tech are owned by 2% of the population who live like lords while the rest live at a subsistence level. (I.e. Elysium movie).
Those with money will be the ones who have the means for developing nanofabrication. Those with money will still be in control. I don't see egalitarianism in our future.
Graeme wrote: "Matthew wrote: "We've already seen how existing hierarchical structures were overthrown based on a fundamental shift in the means of production - i.e. agrarian giving way to rural, causing the fall..."Far more than the mechanisms of extraction changed. The biggest change has been the number of people living in relative poverty, having access to basic literacy, health and services, and being monied and owning property. In that respect, everything has changed since the age of serfs and lords, for the simple reason that the vast majority of people (using the UK as an example) have gone from living in poverty to living with abundance.
There's a reason people in the UK today have a democratic franchise and legislation in place that prevents arbitrary abuses of power, unlawful imprisonment, and respects the rights of private property. It's because the number of people with money, educations and property has increased exponentially since feudal times.
This is not to say that people are not still denied control of their own lives and have less power than others. It's also not to say that people still can be "wage slaves" or slaved to their debts. But these are perfect examples of "first-world problems". It's only comparable to serfdom and traditional hierarchical systems in the most tongue-in-cheek sort of ways.
Scout wrote: "Those with money will be the ones who have the means for developing nanofabrication. Those with money will still be in control. I don't see egalitarianism in our future."It won't matter. The same was true in how industrial machinery was controlled only by those who had money. Still, the increased production of material goods and wealth made it impossible not to redistribute them, which led to an increase in living standards steadily from the 18th to the 20th centuries. The same is true of nanofabrication, but on steriods! As long as the technology exists, it will produce abundance that will be impossible to hoard or restrict. And any attempts to do so will be eroded by those looking to "disrupt" the market.
Hi Matthew. You may well be right. Economic and technological progress may well disrupt long established social forms and power structures. It remains to be seen if it is for good or ill. I tend to be optimistic about technological progress but I am pessimistic about how that progress may be used.
All the while people were engaged in a working/production circle, being able to sell their labor for monetary remuneration. The same technology may render human work redundant. There should be place for creativity, art, entertainment (unless, of course, Artificial Intelligence ruling the world waives these), but maybe not for mass simple jobs. The abundance may be achievable, but would billions of not working dudes be fed and sustained?There is only so much room for indie authors on Amazon -:)
Will the abundance spill over to all at some stage or trickle down, if you want?
Thinking about this, when does an abundance become a glut?Just this morning, I was listening to a Philadelphia area radio show, and they mentioned that somewhere in Philly there would be around 4000 covid vaccines available at a place for the next day or two, basically encouraging people to come and get vaccinated because the vaccines neared their shelf life.
A month ago, in this same area you had to sign up, be put in a tier and hope that you'd be given a date when you could go get a vaccine.
Nik said, "but would billions of not working dudes be fed and sustained?" Well maybe not billions but hundreds of thousands are now not working, being fed and sustained in the US because they get $600 a week unemployment. Businesses here are begging for workers, signs everywhere offering employment, and the jobs aren't being filled. Why work? Is this a planned attack on capitalism? An undermining of the work ethic that founded this nation?
Barbara wrote: "Thinking about this, when does an abundance become a glut?Just this morning, I was listening to a Philadelphia area radio show, and they mentioned that somewhere in Philly there would be around 4..."
When the tide is turned from super demand to super supply. I guess we've witnessed the entire cycle on masks, sanitizers and other stuff, which price skyrocketed from close to nothing and rough landed a year after
Scout wrote: "Businesses here are begging for workers, signs everywhere offering employment, and the jobs aren't being filled. Why work?..."Maybe it's a late correction for Great Depression era, when people begged for work and got none. Wonder how many died from starvation during those times..
This country was built by people who wanted to work hard and get ahead, and it worked for a long time and made us a great country. In my opinion, Capitalism is good, but it's under attack, and Socialism seems to be the aim of our government. I can't see that turning out well.
Scout wrote: "This country was built by people who wanted to work hard and get ahead, and it worked for a long time and made us a great country. In my opinion, Capitalism is good, but it's under attack, and Soci..."I wouldn't worry much about capitalism yet. It seems to flourish with American corporations still forming the most of top 50 and probably further down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of... with "globalization effect" being exploited to its fullest.
Whether corporate wellbeing translates enough into a general one is another question.
Reminiscing back - Woodstock crowd didn't strike as particularly labor- hungry :)
The traditional work undergoes changes and innovations. In high-tech and other spheres employees, for example, are offered options/shares and can enjoy company's success.
I think the problem with the employment now is that the nature of the available work is changing, and now the educated have plenty of opportunities, but those who for whatever reason failed at school have real problems.
Scout wrote: "Nik said, "but would billions of not working dudes be fed and sustained?" Well maybe not billions but hundreds of thousands are now not working, being fed and sustained in the US because they get $..."CARES was $600 a week. The current package the federal government provides for $300 a week. Beginning in late May, in AZ, the requirement to seek work is back in effect in order to qualify for any public aid or unemployment. The year limitation on UI goes back into effect in many states again, as the Rescue Act ends in September.
$300 a week is the equivalent of $7.50 an hour. The Federal minmum wage is $7.25. In AZ it's 12.15. However, our UI rate is $187 to $240 per week. Receiving AZ at its maximum combined with the federal subsidy would be 13.25 an hour.
Common sense would tell me to max out the UI benefit while I search for a job that pays a reasonble wage. I would not want to work for less money, especially with the added costs of being employed - from transportation and clothes to childcare and medical insurance?
The jobs here that are not being filled are those that pay minimum wage with few benefits. Walmart, McDonalds, and the generally low-paying service industries. I know a lot of people who have been using this opportunity to go to school online, either college or a trade program, in hopes of having a better future. Making lemonade out of lemons. What happened that caused them to be out of work (the pandemic and shutdowns) was not their choice, but turning it into an opportunity is something I believe should be admired; not condemned.
Yes, there are many who have just sat around doing nothing. It is the States' responsibility to now put back into effect those rules that limit the time period and require compliance in seeking work.
Feels like the need to open a separate thread dedicated to modern employment.
Good idea, Nik. Why don't you start one? :-)
Nik said, "I wouldn't worry much about capitalism yet. It seems to flourish with American corporations still forming the most of top 50 and probably further down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of... with "globalization effect" being exploited to its fullest." Do you think Biden's proposal of increasing corporate tax from 21% to 28% shows support for capitalism, will increase our tax base or encourage corporations to move back overseas?
Scout wrote: "Do you think Biden's proposal of increasing corporate tax from 21% to 28% shows support for capitalism, will increase our tax base or encourage corporations to move back overseas?..."Almost anything that is done - someone will be unhappy and might "move". Brexit was feared too because of the expectation that many companies would move their headquarters, once London turns non-EU. Some did, but how many?
The sad thing that lots of manufacturing had already moved long before Biden. The positive thing is - they all want to sell their produce in the States, as its their biggest market, so they will think very carefully how much "American" they'd still want to remain. The tax rate per se, if it doesn't deal with loopholes, might not change much, so there need to be a comprehensive approach
My guess is most companies that moved did so for cheap l;abour and subsidies. Once they move, the possibility of using tax havens comes to the fore. If Biden wants to get more corporate tax, loopholes and tax havens offer a huge opportunity, but I doubt that tax rate increase alone would cause moving. Moving to operate in another country is a big deal because there are many operational things to consider.
We had example of Musk moving Tesla from Ca to Tx because Tx gave tax break.Capital gains are easily avoided if company (like all tech giants) pays for service to another part of company offshore e.g. Amazon and Apple in Luxemburg charging parent for brand . Thus corproarte gains on small amount will produce very little.
Take a look at US coprs incorporated in Delaware because of tax rates.
The answer is in the national laws to block such activity.
The money off shore is not going anywhere. Apple added another $30B in profit this year all kept out of USA and therefore no corp tax at any rate
One possible answer would be to require such corporations to declare their international profits, with failure to do so by moving the corporation out of the US making it unable then to trade in the US. Of course, if all corporations decided to leave, that would be embarassing.
Another route is the stock exchange e.g. if profits declared in exchange where stock is traded then profits should be taxed there e.g. NASDAQ listing = US Tax and FTSE = UK Tax. Profits claimed must be paid. Not going to happen either...
Philip, the argument here is that profits made by operational trading in NZ should have NZ tax paid on them. Not going to happen anytime soon
Philip wrote: "We had example of Musk moving Tesla from Ca to Tx because Tx gave tax break...."Speaking of which, I see some Texas villagers are upset and complain of being forced out. Doesn't remind a bit those books/movies describing railroads and other biz forcing people out more than a century ago?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-mus...
Ian wrote: "I think the problem with the employment now is that the nature of the available work is changing, and now the educated have plenty of opportunities, but those who for whatever reason failed at scho..."That was always the lesson when I was a kid. It was the lesson my grandmother drove into my father. His father had a third grade education and my dad was the first to go to college. It is more apparent now.
So the question is abundance possible? We are already there now. The bigger question is can we keep it?
Scout wrote: "Nik said, "I wouldn't worry much about capitalism yet. It seems to flourish with American corporations still forming the most of top 50 and probably further down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..."If they play this game, the corporations will move. It is the lesson of history. I would not be surprised to see the government try and tax those that move the money out.
Can we keep abundance? I don't know. The scientist in me says that there will be sufficient technical solutions available that yes, we can. The skeptic in me says people will somehow mess it all up.
The way things are going here, I'd go with people messing it up. We've got these bills costing trillions of dollars that we don't have. Taxes are going to go up; inflation has begun and will get worse; jobs are going down because people are getting paid not to work; we have many thousands of illegal immigrants that need support and health care; and God knows what's going to happen with the oil supply and gas prices. I'm not seeing abundance for the middle class that's going to have to pay for all this insanity.
For what it is worth, Scout, inflation here is starting to climb too :-( You are not alone in this.
No schadenfreude here, Ian, but it does help to know that it's not just happening here. Wishing you guys good luck.
Glad to help, Scout, but I wish the help was more, shall we say, helpful. You are not alone, but that doesn't make either of us that better off. As for the good luck, same to you. We may both need it :-)
