Does this essay convince you?

Question

I was introduced to the concept of a post scarcity economy a while back, but it took me two months to really accept it as correct because it goes against everything I've been taught and I kept trying to find holes in the theory to justify our current system, so I decided to try to write an essay that gives a good introduction and attempts to patch some of those holes for those being introduced to it.

It's pretty long, so only read it if you have time and an interest in social or political issues. Please argue with me in any way you can, I want critiques; but please actually read it first before you critique it and don't bring up things I've already adresed:

http://www.williamabaris.net78.net/socioeconomictheory.html

Answer 1

Not at all.

1. It is hard to argue that there is more than enough to go around when the newspapers are filled with stories about people not having enough food, the scarcity of raw materials, etc. as well as forecasts of not enough potable water, etc.

2. It may well be the case that automation has almost eliminated the need for human labor in the context of manufacturing. But:

2.A. This is at the cost of significant expenditure of energy. Energy is becoming scarce, and even if it weren't, do you really want to burn all that coal to speed up global warming?

2.B. Most of the goods people consume are not manufactured goods. Most of the goods people really want are services requiring skilled labor, which is always in short supply. Everyone agrees that schools with class size smaller than 20 are best; who has that? Everyone wants good medical care; how do we satisfy the growing demand? Do you see a way of automating it all?

At the other extreme are the primary goods, such as oil. No amount of automation can get oil or metal from the ground when there isn't any left to get.

3. Even if there were enough to go around now, population continues to grow. What argument can you provide that we will not go back to a situation where goods are scarce?

4. In theory, there is a big difference between what people need and what they want, but in practice, perceptions are not so clear. How many Americans would be willing to live as most Americans did only 100 years ago? Clearly, having more than people did back then is not truly necessary, but most would argue going back to that sort of life would be unbearable (and for people growing up expecting more, it may even be true).

Are you planning on changing human nature? Have you any reason to believe that the changes you are planning to make are feasible?

5. It is interesting that all your examples of "gifting" involve individual endeavors. Have you thought about what it would take to do anything at a larger scale?

It is certainly the case that there are fundamental elements of common thinking about economics that are not valid. The classic example is that the world is a zero-sum game: your gain is someone else's loss. Clearly, the fundamental result of the analysis of trade is that both parties can benefit. This is even more true with technology and information.

But to say we are in a position to develop a post-scarcity economy seems optimistic to say the least.