OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics


GO TO THE MAIN THREAD Sort By:


DanielLC 5 October 2015 11:40 AM
62%

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you rephrase that?

stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 7 October 2015 06:10 AM
55%

If you can have fun directly without buying then wealth isn't even usefull. There are environments where exchange and trade is not an essential facet of thriving in the environment. For example amassing diamonds in minecraft can be counter-productive.

While the real world has a very meaningfull market mechanisms and a lot of systems can be invaded by leveraging resources from it, there are some problems/areas where throwing money at it does comparatively little or the lack of money isn't the primary limitator. For example while hiring trainers, organising sporting events, hiring dietarists etc can be important for top athletes it is somewhat hard to buy motivation or diligence to go throught with the training. That is even with near-infinite budjet achieving a gold medal at olympics isn't a trivial task and can fail (maybe discounting outrigth corruption).

In order for wealth to be usefull there must exist someone that has capacbility to help you but is just unwilling to do so. For some needs nobody has the capability to help (yet).

stars0
Reply


DanielLC 9 October 2015 11:35 AM
61%

Sounds like Star Trek's post-scarcity economy. I agree that in that situation, wealth inequality is pointless.

I wouldn't say wealth is pointless. We only have a finite amount of resources, and they have to be distributed somehow. Most people might be fine using a tiny amount of resources, but there are some people who will just build bigger and bigger megaprojects until they've run out of resources. You still need wealth. But when you get to the point where AIs are better than humans at everything, and there's no need for humans to work, there's no point in wealth inequality. You just give everyone the same amount of money, and they have no conceivable way of earning anything beyond that. Although at that point the AIs will probably be smart enough to give people who will appreciate the money more more of it.

stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 13 October 2015 10:10 AM
60%

It doesn't need to be post-scarcity to make sense. If you are going to crash-land on a deserted island and have a choice of taking a pile of potatoes or a pile of gold it isn't obvoius that gold is the right choice.

In ordfer for the gold to be the rigth choice the islands needs somebody to trade with. But even if the islands has natives if they refuse to trade with you you are almost as good (if not worse off) than if they didn't exist. People are not inherently trade-dependant. If you are like a dozen people deserted on an isloand you don't need a coin economy to organize yourself to make life more comfortable (ie the gold is of no use). Organisational problems start only emerge once the group size is over thousands.

stars0
Reply


DanielLC 14 October 2015 11:25 PM
61%

And there are over thousands of people. We can't have nearly as much wealth per capita with societies smaller than that.

stars0
Reply