Post-scarcity doesn’t neccesarily mean lots of stuff, just that we don’t count it.
There was an episode of Doctor Who where in the future space station people thought about money and distances in how much oxygen tasks would take. Living on planet earth I do not count how many breaths I take. It doesn’t mean that I breath in an infinite amount of oxygen. If I wanted I could breath more and theorethicdally it could give me a little more brain thought cycles. But it is not a relevant constraint so I don’t keep count.
In war time when you go buy food you might be limited to food stamps ie rationing is effect. Then food supply would become scarce. During peace people are less concerned whether you are overeating or not (or like your doctor rather than your milk seller cares).
With internet we used to pay per data transferred. Now it is more common to pay for a speed. In that regard we have moved to post-scarcity data amounts (evebody gets infinite data as long at they don’t hog the bandwidth out from others)
Interpersonal competition is not the most natural part of economy. If we systematically outlawed pay-to-win then the coupling would be signficantly lessened. And its already the case that areanas that enforce equality are better status grabs than where you can influence the outcome by outside factors. Boxing is by weight class. Most motorsports have technical rulings which means expensive parts don’t confer an autowin advantage.
We are totally in a mode where advantages in one field are mostly convertible to advantages to other fields rather than empowering humans to the point where personal fit or aptitude would be the relevant limitors.
Post-scarcity doesn’t neccesarily mean lots of stuff, just that we don’t count it.
Wouldn’t not counting be the result of there being lots of stuff? Your examples are cases of there being more stuff than people want on average.
Interpersonal competition is not the most natural part of economy. If we systematically outlawed pay-to-win then the coupling would be signficantly lessened. And its already the case that areanas that enforce equality are better status grabs than where you can influence the outcome by outside factors. Boxing is by weight class. Most motorsports have technical rulings which means expensive parts don’t confer an autowin advantage.
Economy is not about status, at least not for the most part. If I “pay to win” by buying tasty, prepared food, it’s because I want to enjoy it and have more time for other things, not because I want to prove something.
The threshold of bothering to keep track is hit sooner than other conditions that are sometimes treated as thresholds that make economic analysis make sense. For some that an amount is finite means that there is a division problem associated with it. Closely related thing is an assumption of infinite greed ie insatiability of needs. While you are very far of being bale to satisfy needs and frequently encounter new needs that are no where near satisfiability it might make sense as a modelling assumption that needs can’t be made go away by meeting them. However if the infinite greed assumtion was true then every buffet should go out of business as all customers draw infinite food from them. In practise however people don’t draw much more than if they paid for fixed portions (althouht being banned from that kind of establishment for being a statistical outlier happens). One way of looking at this is that hunger is a thing that can hit satiation within a meal.
The latter quoted section responds to the post section under the piechart how given much relaxation scarcity mechanics would be in play. I agree that those components are not integral to economy and thus the conclusion that is supposed to be inescable is very escable. Even if not all transactions are not of that feature I think the dynamics are like two blokes trying to have the optimal car to woe women and the woman impression metric is monotonic in the amount of cash spent on car. PvP where you can improve you chances by putting in more money so all sides sink very much of what they have. If sexual selection based on wealth signals would not make sense the dynamic would break. If it would be efficient to impressed by other factors the dynamic would break (such as drive a boring car to signal confidence). Being a a milloinare CEO can invoke reverence for power but it can also invoke disgust for evil The Man. The desirability or permissibilty of these kinds of pissing contests is atleast an open quesiton for me, far from a constant of nature.
Post-scarcity doesn’t neccesarily mean lots of stuff, just that we don’t count it.
There was an episode of Doctor Who where in the future space station people thought about money and distances in how much oxygen tasks would take. Living on planet earth I do not count how many breaths I take. It doesn’t mean that I breath in an infinite amount of oxygen. If I wanted I could breath more and theorethicdally it could give me a little more brain thought cycles. But it is not a relevant constraint so I don’t keep count.
In war time when you go buy food you might be limited to food stamps ie rationing is effect. Then food supply would become scarce. During peace people are less concerned whether you are overeating or not (or like your doctor rather than your milk seller cares).
With internet we used to pay per data transferred. Now it is more common to pay for a speed. In that regard we have moved to post-scarcity data amounts (evebody gets infinite data as long at they don’t hog the bandwidth out from others)
Interpersonal competition is not the most natural part of economy. If we systematically outlawed pay-to-win then the coupling would be signficantly lessened. And its already the case that areanas that enforce equality are better status grabs than where you can influence the outcome by outside factors. Boxing is by weight class. Most motorsports have technical rulings which means expensive parts don’t confer an autowin advantage.
We are totally in a mode where advantages in one field are mostly convertible to advantages to other fields rather than empowering humans to the point where personal fit or aptitude would be the relevant limitors.
Wouldn’t not counting be the result of there being lots of stuff? Your examples are cases of there being more stuff than people want on average.
Economy is not about status, at least not for the most part. If I “pay to win” by buying tasty, prepared food, it’s because I want to enjoy it and have more time for other things, not because I want to prove something.
The threshold of bothering to keep track is hit sooner than other conditions that are sometimes treated as thresholds that make economic analysis make sense. For some that an amount is finite means that there is a division problem associated with it. Closely related thing is an assumption of infinite greed ie insatiability of needs. While you are very far of being bale to satisfy needs and frequently encounter new needs that are no where near satisfiability it might make sense as a modelling assumption that needs can’t be made go away by meeting them. However if the infinite greed assumtion was true then every buffet should go out of business as all customers draw infinite food from them. In practise however people don’t draw much more than if they paid for fixed portions (althouht being banned from that kind of establishment for being a statistical outlier happens). One way of looking at this is that hunger is a thing that can hit satiation within a meal.
The latter quoted section responds to the post section under the piechart how given much relaxation scarcity mechanics would be in play. I agree that those components are not integral to economy and thus the conclusion that is supposed to be inescable is very escable. Even if not all transactions are not of that feature I think the dynamics are like two blokes trying to have the optimal car to woe women and the woman impression metric is monotonic in the amount of cash spent on car. PvP where you can improve you chances by putting in more money so all sides sink very much of what they have. If sexual selection based on wealth signals would not make sense the dynamic would break. If it would be efficient to impressed by other factors the dynamic would break (such as drive a boring car to signal confidence). Being a a milloinare CEO can invoke reverence for power but it can also invoke disgust for evil The Man. The desirability or permissibilty of these kinds of pissing contests is atleast an open quesiton for me, far from a constant of nature.