Faking post-scarcity

[mindstalk]

(Followup to my moneyless economies appeal post)

So, I was thinking about how moneyless would work, and realized "no trade" is a condition for faking post-scarcity. Imagine a society that's aimed at being totally 'fair' in satisfying wants, so you get stuff by asking for it. There are three big conditions:
* supply exceeds demand, even at-will demand. It's free! Trade outside the society may be restricted so you're not trying to feed the entire world.
* demand exceeds supply somewhat. Take a number and wait your turn; queueing. Number of requests is a signal
to planners that they should order or request (depending on labor freedom) more of this. Banning trade ensures that people get stuffy they want to use themselves, rather than requesting everything under the sun and seeing what they can make of it, and stretching the line of people who actually want the thing.
* demand greatly exceeds supply, so you'd have to wait a large fraction or even multiple of your lifetime to get a chance. Take a ticket and see if you win the respective lottery. Again, banning trade keeps people from requesting tickets to everything and diluting the pools.

+: 'fair' and equal, while handling diversity of goods without trying to homogenize everything.
-: very intrusive to make sure no one's cheating. Probably requires complication to handle "I want X by a particular date" -- maybe just another lottery. Weak spot in guests: if someone requests enough T-bone steak for a dinner party, guest seats become something to 'sell'. Doesn't try to account for levels of desire, e.g. "I'd use it if I got it but I don't care that much" vs. "I really want this". Not clear how to stimulate production: increase priorities of workers somehow? Orders? Let people do what they want, and allocate the products as above?

But what if we monetize this? Everyone gets a basic income, say $10K a year, with cost of living being $5K. Much of the formerly free stuff now gets provided at cost. If you want semi-scarce, moderately expensive stuff, you'll have to save up money, effectively self-queuing. The case of really expensive and rare things is still a lottery, but you buy lottery tickets. Allocation in general is by how much you want something, as measured by what else you're willing to give up for it. Trade, at least within the society, is perfectly fine. Jobs in needed fields can bring additional income.

Comments

[mrteufel.livejournal.com]

Of course, in example 1 if the whole world is in the post-scarcity system, there's no need to ban trade outside the system. Since there is no 'outside'.

$0.02

[catsidhe.livejournal.com]

Most sci-fi depictions of post-scarcity also handwave away production in the way we understand it. If you want something, you don't have to get a factory to make it and ship it to you, it just appears. (Nano-fabrication facilities, per The Diamond Age, handwaved AI magic in the Culture, that sort of thing.)

Jobs tend to be something that people do because they want to, rather than from any need. (Whether or not there is a human urge to Do Something Useful is one of those deep questions that separates the post-scarcity libertarian utopias from the post-scarcity conservative distopias (where everyone is fat and lazy and useless, except John Galt the hero).

Re: $0.02

[mrteufel.livejournal.com]

...except Wall-E the hero).