Going back far enough, scarcity is the answer. We technically live in a post-scarcity world now. But we are bound by the models we developed when it existed.
Comment on Why is currency so essential?
Daft_ish@lemmy.world 1 month agoI being obtuse, for sure, but why does your land lord need you to provide him goods and services?
classic@fedia.io 1 month ago
bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 1 month ago
I wouldn’t say we are completely post scarcity, but enough of the producers of goods create enough artificial scarcity in order to keep prices high and the train moving. Unfortunately, I don’t see the paradigm changing until we have a major altering event in which many people perish.
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 1 month ago
We’re only post-scarcity for certain things in certain geopolitical regions, and even then, logistics of distributing those things is a problem. Computers, for example, will always be scarce in their current form because the raw materials to build them are naturally scarce, can only be extracted so fast, and have a limited ability to be recycled. We have a shit-ton of them, but they’re still scarce.
classic@fedia.io 1 month ago
I hear you on the resources needed for computers being scarcer. But this might still fall overall under human induced scarcity. If we lived in more communal ways, the whole approach to personal computers could change, for instance, in a way that increased access in a more sustainable way. In no way do I believe that will happen, ofc. Just as we're not likely going to go from every household owning one or more televisions to having, say, a shared theater in every neighborhood
classic@fedia.io 1 month ago
There is definitely human induced scarcity. I debated including that distinction.
bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 1 month ago
No worries. I do think that a major tipping point towards true post scarcity will be when we can figure out and deploy nuclear fusion, though we’ll still be mired by price gouging until we demand better.
Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
It’s nice to have something to eat.
Daft_ish@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Food, people make food in excess.
Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
Do they? I’m pretty sure only about one in three humans works in food production. I think it is reasonable for them to expect the other two to give them something for their food in return.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Landlords exist to extract value.
blakemiller@lemmy.world 1 month ago
And we exist to extract value from agriculture. We’ve developed to a point where it’s both possible and desirable to live in close proximity to one another. It’s possible because ag is so successful and scalable, and it’s desirable because new opportunities are possible when everything is nearby. So that’s the trade off you made. To afford the city life, you accrue value through city opportunities and you trade it in exchange for the goods from service providers. The alternative is that you run your own farm. Ask yourself how many farmers you know! And you’ll see which decision most people make.
All to say, we shouldn’t think of value extraction as a uniformly bad practice. We all do it and we need to do it because each square acre of land doesn’t provide the same goods and services.
Daft_ish@lemmy.world 1 month ago
To pay for more goods and services that extract value.
FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 month ago
You answered your question in the sentence right after your question. The landlord owns the property and so he can do what he wants with it. He's letting you live there but has decided he wants something in exchange for letting you live there. If currency didn't exist he'd want something else in exchange.
Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Making the assumption ownership is a valued currency of course.
Which is arguably a bootstrap-paradox; we need capital to participate in capitalism, for which we need - cause without capitalism what would we do with our capital.
FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 month ago
Are you suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to own stuff? There are very few economic systems where people aren't allowed to own stuff and they tend not to be popular. Most of the people who are complaining about landlords and rent and whatnot really just want to own their own houses.
Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
I mean like owning things is a human concept not a physical law, so yeah I can imagine a society exists where nothing is owned
Can’t say if it’d be better or worse than our current cause were not trying it, but tbh I’d be happy if instead of solely me being able to use ‘my’ drill for example, the whole community can whenever they require.
Sounds a hell of a lot more efficient to me if we work together not apart