Rick Webb

This https://medium.com/@RickWebb/the-economics-of-star-trek-29bab88d50#.yd… is a great read on the economics of Star Trek.

First, the world needs to become truly globalised in terms of cost of labor. It's pragmatic from capitalist standpoint, and it also serves the interests of humanity (I find that these two are almost entirely oriented together, if we're talking about a swarm of competing capitalists and not one behemoth monopoly). But after the whole world comes to more or less the same cost of labor, this will begin to rapidly appear across the whole globe. Here's another great piece on that problem: https://medium.com/@RickWebb/the-economics-of-star-trek-29bab88d50

However we might postulate that at some point all subsistence related jobs will be fulfilled - food, shelter, clothing. At some point we will need to make a big shift in our society. Who pays for the automated services, who owns them and how richness will be redistributed will be the big questions for three-four generations down the road to solve. sure, the effects are unknowable, that's why whe should ramp up the talks about it. Speculation is followed by talks which are followed by research which eventually will be needed. We need more insightful articles, to motivate new minds to find solution before future generations will find themselves truly automated out of all works in a society where work is essential to subsistence. https://medium.com/@RickWebb/the-economics-of-star-trek-29bab88d50

There is a follow-up by Mr. Graham [1], and there is a follow-up to his follow-up by the original open-letter author [2]. I would like to add one thing. Given that Mr. Graham has put forth an essay on an (macro) economic topic, and his employment of the 'per se' argument method, there is an obvious lack of proper treatment of the basic and foundational economic concept of 'ceteris paribus'. Without employing the tool of 'ceteris paribus' in his his essay Mr. Graham has left the door wide open for discussion of all sorts of things which might form a critical response to his argument: "But economic inequality per se is not bad." On the same topic, in his follow-up he weakens his argument substantially by prefacing it with: "I thought it might help clarify matters if I tried to write a version so simple that it leaves no room for misinterpretation." Less words does not necessarily make for a smaller room, Mr. Graham. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/sim.html [2] https://medium.com/@RickWebb/paul-graham-s-second-inequality-essay-is-…

When this is linked, I'd like to add this article about a concrete fiction of post-scarcity: https://medium.com/@RickWebb/the-economics-of-star-trek-29bab88d50

Star Trek TNG was social democracy with a basic income. No one had to work, but people could still get a benefit from doing so, and could own things. One theory how all this fits together: https://medium.com/@RickWebb/the-economics-of-star-trek-29bab88d50

The federation was a peaceful powerhouse but it was the most aggressive economic force around. https://medium.com/@RickWebb/the-economics-of-star-trek-29bab88d50#.8c… (keep in mind we are in the fan realm, nonetheless a nice read if you are into ST)

I don't diagree with anything you said, but your rationalisation of why we have the current system is based on the premise that we have to have the current system. Overthrowing the system isn't on my bucket list, but it makes for an interesting debate - eg: https://medium.com/@RickWebb/the-economics-of-star-trek-29bab88d50

Rick Webb's comments on banner ads are a pretty good indirect rebuttal. https://medium.com/@RickWebb/banner-fraud-doesn-t-matter-fc84413fe59c

You might dig this article on the economics of star trek. It's kind of an inquiry into what currency might look like in an era of abundance. https://medium.com/@RickWebb/the-economics-of-star-trek-29bab88d50

We do know that Federation citizens use non-Federation currencies. Barter seems to be reasonably common in the Star Trek canon. My own theory is that the goods that are still scarce are utterly trivial, like Beanie Babies or Pogs circa 2018. Everything that you might reasonably want or need is completely free within the Federation; a handful of eccentrics might covet a rare painting or an antique, but the vast majority of people would see their preoccupation as absurd. A lay person might admire a rare painting, but they would see no reason to steal it. I also think that Federation culture plays a significant role. It's clear that greed of any kind is seen as primitive and antisocial by the overwhelming majority of Federation citizens. We could draw parallels with the Amish or Mennonites - you can't have status goods in a society where displays of wealth actively lower your social status. The Federation is not just a post-scarcity economy, but a post-scarcity culture. We could think of the time investment in things like holosuite programs as being loosely equivalent to the philanthropic activities of the very wealthy circa 2018, conferring no material benefit but a substantial degree of social capital. Designing a hit holosuite program might not earn you any money, but it would get you an invite to the Federation equivalent of TED. Joseph Sisko charges nothing for meals at his creole restaurant, but earns the respect of his neighbours. This is a fascinating article…

Obligatory: https://medium.com/@RickWebb/banner-fraud-doesn-t-matter-fc84413fe59c "Here’s a message on behalf of brand marketers everywhere.† We know about banner fraud already. We just don’t care. Seriously. It’s fine. I mean, you got us into this mess years ago, and sure, it was kind of annoying, but you know what? It is what it is. To your immense credit, you have adjusted prices downward as you’ve made banners an ever-increasing stshow, so, actually, it’s totally cool. We like them. That’s right. I said it. We like banners. So stop telling us that they are useless. Everyone does not hate banners. You’ve thrown, god, what is it, something like 400 different, new, “better” ad formats at us now. But we keep buying banners. It’s time everyone accepted the truth: we’re not buying banners from you because it’s the only thing you can sell us, we’re buying banners from you because they’re cheap and they work."

> However, a group of nail salon manicurists cannot. So, this is true today, but I think it's missing the bigger picture of a world where UBI actually exists. Basic Income leads to Universal Basic Income (UBI). One of the reasons why there are so many nail salon manicurists today is because we have made higher education very expensive, among other reasons. Do you really think most of the people working as manicurists today would be doing that if they didn't have to in order to pay the bills and higher education were free (or very cheap)? No. They would not. That's not to say there's anything wrong with being a manicurist. Indeed some may do it because that's what they want to do. But I do know that most people, including most software developers, wouldn't be doing what they are doing right now if the basics were guaranteed for them. The future is a world where most of today's jobs are automated away. It's very different from the one we live in right now, so it makes little sense to think only in terms of today's world when talking about BI / UBI. This is necessary preparation for the future. You've got "Star Trek" on one side [1][2], and "Dawn of the Dead" on the other. You're going to have to choose somewhere along that spectrum. [1] http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2013/10/17/toward-star-trek-economics/ [2] https://medium.com/@RickWebb/the-economics-of-star-trek-29bab88d50