What is Capitalism?

[Stevicus]

The worst thing that ever happened to space
exploration &economics was Star Trek. It
created fantasies that people really believe...
- Space travel is cheap, safe, & convenient.
- Money will disappear when everyone has
everything they want.
- People will want only the basics in life.

It was the envisioned technology that made the fantasy. Their methods of generating power made energy cheap and abundant. The technology of replicators made it possible to produce literally anything out of nothing. When people can get anything they want as easily as picking up a pebble off the ground or a grain of sand on the beach, then no one will make any money selling it. There would be no point in even trying.

Notice how they didn't have to forcibly ban money or have some overtly socialist state. It was simply a matter of creating the conditions to where the accumulation of wealth and money was no longer necessary or relevant.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was the envisioned technology that made the fantasy.

And how people respond.

The technology of replicators made it possible to produce literally anything out of nothing.

No, replicators had limitations.
Dint I cover those earlier?
Yes...post #183.

 

[Kfox]

Yeah and the other answer given to how it could be useful was developed by whom?

I believe there were several people who made the subjective claim that it was useful; not quite sure which one you are talking about

So could you try so start be recognizing when some of us reference science and not how we think as individuals?

Tell you what; provide the scientific literature making your point and we can go from there

 

[Stevicus]

And how people respond.



No, replicators had limitations.
Dint I cover those earlier?
Yes...post #183.

Post #183:

Even Trekonomics has resource allocation.
Remember that there is more than just the basics
of life, eg, housing, food, health care. And in
the Star Trek universe, there has been crime & war
to gain resources. There's even money, eg, latinum,
Federation Credits, quatloos.
BTW, Trekonomics is fiction, like Das Kapital.
They're authors' dreams, but all dreams can become
a reality.

Nothing in there about replicators. The crime and war to gain resources was only among societies that didn't have replicators, or it was initiated by those who had different values from the Federation. But it's not so much the "stuff" involved, but the energy, which was limitless and virtually free at that point.

The allocation of energy might be the only measure closest to "money," but if everyone's account is something like 20,000,000,000,000 units of energy, and they only use 0.00000001 unit of energy per year, then how much actual value is that "money"?

 

[Nakosis]

Replicators can't make shuttles, ships, houses, land, dilithium,
latinum, anti-matter, living things, & more replicators.
The impossibility of replicators to make money (ie, latinum)
points to money still being in use.

Latinum was a naturally occuring resource used for trade with other cultures. Those that still valued such things.
I suppose if you really wanted yourself some dilithium you might have to either get it yourself or trade something of value.
Like I said still a need for capitalism.

Components these things could be made per the lore and assembled by robot labor.

Are you really basing a real economic
proposal on a fictional TV show?

No, what makes you think that?
I thought we were talking about how such a fictional economy would work.

 

[metis]

Unless the hole is actually producing something of value that exceeds the cost of the labour, it's not generating wealth.

Depends on how the money is spent. If I dig a hole and fill it, and you pay me for that, I'll then spend my money on maybe buying pansies for the yard, thus in this analogy I'm still stimulating the economy. The seller of the pansies to me then will spend the money maybe as part of buying a car. The car dealer will split the cost with the employees, and one of them may hire me to dig another hole. It's the "multiplier effect".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe there were several people who made the subjective claim that it was useful; not quite sure which one you are talking about

Tell you what; provide the scientific literature making your point and we can go from there

Just google - how can paying people for digging a hole and filling it up again help the economy?
And do it yourself. I am not your teacher and I expect that you can do it on your own.
There have already being posts that mentioned where the claim comes from and other examples of how economy is complex.

But there is the start and then look deeper if you have to.

During the Great Depression, did the US Army do a study involving paying people to dig a hole and fill it back up?

This website indicates a study was done by the US army but it offers no citation or identifying information. I've scoured to try to find the answer myself but am running short on time. Is it true?

history.stackexchange.com

 

[Revoltingest]

Post #183:



Nothing in there about replicators.

Oh, it was #198 that listed some of the things
that couldn't be replicated.
My list is based upon extensive Star Trek research.
(Excluding the cartoons.)

The writers had to impose some limitations,
otherwise many stories would be eliminated,
eg, fighting over resources, Data's being
unique, needing more dilithium.

 

[Stevicus]

Oh, it was #198 that listed some of the things
that couldn't be replicated.
My list is based upon extensive Star Trek research.
(Excluding the cartoons.)

Okay, so latinum can't be replicated. Hence the value of gold-pressed latinum. The gold itself was worthless. But what would one actually buy with it? A moon? A baseball card? To have something to give to the Blessed Exchequer?

 

[Revoltingest]

No, what makes you think that?
I thought we were talking about how such a fictional economy would work.

What a relief!
On RF, it's hard to keep track of what's hypothetical & what's believed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I'd be interested in your understanding of the economy if you ever want to share.

You better ask @metis as far as I can tell.

 

[Nakosis]

What a relief!
On RF, it's hard to keep track of what's hypothetical & what's believed.

Well not the Star Trek replicator but we are already working on something that would work similarly.

IMO, the end goal of capitalism should be the end of scarcity. And it is not doing to bad at it.
For example, just about everyone has access to a cell phone thanks to capitalism.

Through capitalism, we might even reach the utopian goal socialists dream of.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well not the Star Trek replicator but we are already working on something that would work similarly.

IMO, the end goal of capitalism should be the end of scarcity. And it is not doing to bad at it.
For example, just about everyone has access to a cell phone thanks to capitalism.

Through capitalism, we might even reach the utopian goal socialists dream of.

Well, I am more inclined to bet on science as such.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IMO, the end goal of capitalism should be the end of scarcity.

Why would that be the goal of capitalism? Capitalism is fed by scarcity; it's the driver of profit.

 

[Kfox]

Depends on how the money is spent. If I dig a hole and fill it, and you pay me for that, I'll then spend my money on maybe buying pansies for the yard, thus in this analogy I'm still stimulating the economy.

Yeah; but the person who gave you the money don't have enough money to buy his own thing that would have stimulated the economy, he is preventing the economy from growing to the same extent that you are causing it to grow; canceling each other out.

 

[Nakosis]

You better ask @metis as far as I can tell.

He tends to get upset with me because I am never satisfied with the standard answer the most of academia has already accepted as factual.

I'm not really an easy person to argue with but you aren't either. That doesn't bother me though.

 

[Kfox]

Just google - how can paying people for digging a hole and filling it up again help the economy?
And do it yourself. I am not your teacher and I expect that you can do it on your own.
There have already being posts that mentioned where the claim comes from and other examples of how economy is complex.

But there is the start and then look deeper if you have to.

During the Great Depression, did the US Army do a study involving paying people to dig a hole and fill it back up?

This website indicates a study was done by the US army but it offers no citation or identifying information. I've scoured to try to find the answer myself but am running short on time. Is it true?

history.stackexchange.com

I am sure there are lots of people who posted links expressing their subjective views of this being effective, and just as many people posting subjective views about how it doesn't work. I'm not here to read about countless views for/against an idea, I am here to have a discussion with anyone willing to post on this forum. You are on this forum. If you have an opinion on this issue, voice it; otherwise and rightly so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He tends to get upset with me because I am never satisfied with the standard answer the most of academia has already accepted as factual.

I'm not really an easy person to argue with but you aren't either. That doesn't bother me though.

Okay, here is something else.
I will go indirect.
For 2+2=4, 2+2=11, 2+2=5 and 2+2=∞ there are several answers possible due to different states of learning in different humans.
But here is where it get funny.
"Piaget believed that learning proceeded by the interplay of assimilation (adjusting new experiences to fit prior concepts) and accommodation (adjusting concepts to fit new experiences). The to-and-fro of these two processes leads not only to short-term learning, but also to long-term developmental change."
That last one is not that easy to learn to spot in your own learning, once you add that we humans like to be right.

Yeah, I know. That can't in any way, shape or form be connect to what we are debating, but it is. And that is how I bow out for now.
I do get him and yes, you would have to relearn how you learn, to learn to understand it differently as some of us do.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well not the Star Trek replicator but we are already working on something that would work similarly.

IMO, the end goal of capitalism should be the end of scarcity. And it is not doing to bad at it.
For example, just about everyone has access to a cell phone thanks to capitalism.

Through capitalism, we might even reach the utopian goal socialists dream of.

Never underestimate people's propensity
to want what they don't have.
But I agree the UBI will be necessary as
workers increasingly become unworthy
of what they cost employers.

 

[Nakosis]

Why would that be the goal of capitalism? Capitalism is fed by scarcity; it's the driver of profit.

Capitalism is an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society.

The end goal of capitalism is to allow an economy that can best serve everyone's interest. Currently, this is being done by an agreement between parties on the value of the exchange of goods and services. You get what you want and I get what I want.

If we can create a society where everyone gets what they want, then that goal would be fulfilled.
The market price would basically get set to zero, which is perfectly in keeping with capitalist ideology.