Comment on Wreck the economy because it only works for the billionaire class.
Nahvi@lemmy.world 9 months agoPlease stop arguing against your own fantasies of what I might think and actually comment on what I said. Doing the former makes for nice campaign speeches, but we aren’t politicians.
Billionaires aren’t the ones that starve when the economy implodes.
Nowhere here did I say billionaires are a good necessary parts of society and we should support them. Crashing the economy will cause mass starvation, but not by those who have the resources and foresight to prepare for turbulent times.
Poor people are literally the foundation of your society
Agreed, but those poor people depend on having a useful currency to trade for tools to make more food. If you crash the economy the little piece of paper we trade around right now will become worthless and we will be back to bartering until someone prints new paper or mints a new specie to use.
The guy making the tools can’t do anything with 100,000 heads of lettuce, he needs something he can pay metallurgists with, who in-turn need something to pay the miners with. That lettuce is going to rot before it changes hands enough times to get into someone’s belly.
SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com 9 months ago
You are too ingrained with a monetary system you can even imagine a system in which one doesn’t exist. The miner doesn’t need a currency when his food and tools are provided for. The metallurgist doesn’t need to sell tools when they can give away the excess. The farmer doesn’t need to sell his food when he can give away the excess. We don’t need constant accumulation to distribute resources in an efficient manner. Especially when the only reason these excess products weren’t given away in the first place is profit motive. Not to mention most of the labor intensive work could be outsourced to robotics where we not hoarding the physical resources for profit and war time motives, making them overtly expensive.
We live in a time where automation and robotics could allow us much more freedom and dignity however we have allowed those at the top too use that efficiency to hoard profits and resources as power management tools instead of utilizing these resources for growth and equity across our species.
Nahvi@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I can imagine it, but only in a post-scarcity society. It just doesn’t seem plausible to me until we are at least a Type 1 Civilization, more likely Type 2.
When two people want or need the same limited resource how do you decide who gets it? Money solves that issue. While it is a poor solution, I have yet to see something that wouldn’t have just as many problems, though admittedly different ones
Even if we had post-scarcity potential, I am not at all sure human nature would allow it. Some people have a fundamental need to stand above other people, others have a fundamental need to collect things, and then there are takers. Takers being those who would gladly take from others but would never give away their own stuff without being forced, even if it was pure excess.
I agree that we are definitely approaching an era where robotics/automation could replace the need for most human labor. Though I don’t really think we are there yet. One of my favorite sayings a few years back was, “humans should be in the business of thinking and creating, not laboring.” Sure I can buy a “perfect” machine made wooden chair but there is a certain character and richness to having one an artisan made.
I was a fan of taxing the labor of robots that replaced humans and using those funds to cover a UBI long before I ever heard the name Andrew Yang, though even that doesn’t get rid of the monetary system.