Discussion Title: What is the best economic system for post-scarcity?

1. What is the best economic path for [post-scarcity](http://adciv.org/Post-scarcity) in the future?
1.1. Capitalism
1.1.1. Con: Capitalism has its downsides and failures, which is why a better system is needed than this.
1.1.1.1. Pro: Capitalist systems tend to [significant inequality](http://evonomics.com/how-capitalism-actually-generates-more-inequality/) due to income inequality and the capital's tendency to accumulate.
1.1.1.1.1. Pro: [Inequality](http://evonomics.com/how-capitalism-actually-generates-more-inequality/) and interactions in an unequal society create negative outcomes for its members, such as psycho-social stress which may cause physical and mental health problems.
1.1.1.2. Pro: Capitalist system encourages greed, thus creating incentives to pursue profit over social welfare, sustainability and equality.
1.1.2. Pro: Since it's the most successful economic model used in history and is still in use today, we should keep it going into the future \(like the adage: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'\).
1.1.2.1. Con: Just because capitalism has been the most successful economic model does not mean there are no better alternatives; sticking with capitalism only can mean societal reform gridlock.
1.1.3. Pro: If combined with other supplementary economic models, then capitalism could be very viable in post-scarcity.
1.1.3.1. Pro: Capitalism is a flexible system, able to adopt and work with various ideas to create the most suitable combination to progress society through post-scarcity
1.2. Creative/knowledge-based economy
1.2.1. Pro: A [creative economy](http://www.creativeeconomy.com/thebasics.htm) with [disruptions](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffboss/2015/11/23/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-disruption-economy/#45c732a61e16) could provide the efficiency and cultural momentum needed to continuously make post-scarcity successful.
1.3. On-demand hybrid income \(ODHI\): Asking the government for money when needed, rather than a UBI, where everyone gets the same amount \(unequally, instead of equally distributed\).
1.3.1. Pro: If people ask the government for money when they need it \(such as when they are between jobs, wanting to create a start-up, or starting a project that cannot be afforded at the moment\).
1.3.2. Pro: The government could be charitable to worthy causes quickly, such as if people want to invest in renewable energy, when people ask, it can happen right away.
1.3.3. Con: This could create privacy issues, where people need to tell the government what they are working on and show proof when complete.
1.3.3.1. Con: Having the government collect data might not be good for privacy, but creates benefits and incentives for the government. One of those is selling data to fund the ODHI.
1.3.3.2. Con: The data collection could help \(be a 'stepping stone'\) with creating a resource-based economy. With knowing about the population demands, all the government has left to do is work on the supply side to create an RBE.
1.3.3.3. Con: Privacy issues do not need to be compromised if people ask for a lump sum for multiple expenses and just label it that.
1.3.4. Con: This would create extra reliance on the government, which would make the government more bureaucratic than now.
1.3.5. Pro: The government can save more money than a UBI by not giving people as much money as a UBI requires.
1.3.5.1. Pro: This money can go towards other spending, like on infrastructure.
1.3.5.2. Pro: Even better, people can ask for their funds for their needs be a loan, so they can pay them off with work. This would lead to lower burdens on the government and taxes overall.
1.3.5.2.1. Pro: If the government asks for interest on the loans \(which is not a good idea\), then they can generate a source of funding for the ODHI.
1.3.6. Pro: People can still have a job with an on-demand income, as it is a supplement instead of a possible job replacement.
1.3.7. Con: Since it is based on approval, if a person needs money for something and it doesn't get approved of, then they miss out.
1.3.8. Con: The approval process might not happen as quickly as people require for their needs
1.3.9. Con: People might waste the money that they ask for, by lying about how it will get used or by asking for money for financially-wasteful tasks.
1.3.10. Con: An on-demand income, just like a UBI and other novel economic ideas, do not resolve all the problems that society faces financially.
1.3.11. Pro: The process can be automated to create further funds for the on-demand income.
1.3.12. Pro: People will find purpose to what they spend their money on, instead of having money handed to them each month and not always knowing what to do with it \(so that money can eventually go to waste\) in a UBI.
1.3.13. Pro: An on-demand income allows for inflation, but does not create the drastic inflation that a UBI is associated with.
1.3.14. Pro: People can get larger amounts of money at one time with an ODHI, so they will not have to wait as long for larger expenses as with a UBI.
1.3.15. Pro: An ODHI is more flexible than a UBI or guaranteed job. People can still have a UBI or job if they want to, but they can also have money when they need it.
1.3.16. Pro: Another such better alternative is to provide free food and lodging, plus free basic healthcare. The wealthy is unlikely to take advantage of the first two \(since they can afford better quality\) so the benefit is focused on those who need it, unlike UBI. But just like UBI, the overhead and bureaucracy are very low since everyone is eligible.
1.3.16.1. Pro: Focusing on the bare necessities like that prevents the government money from being spent on frivolities.
1.4. Universal Basic Income \([UBI](https://www.kialo.com/should-there-be-a-universal-basic-income-ubi-1634)\)
1.4.1. Pro: This system would provide for the basic life necessity without preventing personal achievement. If an individual does not have the ability to thrive competing against machines they would still be able to work on personal development. This system would give people the time and space to find a path in a rapidly changing economy.
1.4.2. Con: The UBI is a partial solution, and while it is a fine solution, it's not the whole path. The remaining system needs to be addressed - laissez faire liberty, or regimented authoritarianism, or where-in-between.
1.4.2.1. Con: Being a partial path does not speak to whether it is the best and most immediate path forward. Best has to do with expediency, ease of implementation, and overall impact.
1.5. Demonetization - i.e. digital economy
1.6. Digital token economy - new money, none from real/fiat money
1.6.1. Pro: If people live in virtual worlds, then they may be given tokens \(everyone's given an equal amount to start/maintain\) to participate in it better.
1.6.1.1. Pro: In this regard, if each world has its own currency, then they may be traded \(like at currency exchanges\).
1.6.2. Pro: Tokens can be flexible - indefinitely or definitely made.
1.6.3. Pro: Digital token economies could based off of [cryptocurrency](https://blockchainhub.net/blog/blog/token-economy-future-currencies/) models.
1.6.3.1. Pro: With the [popularity](https://tokeneconomy.co/token-economy-27-500-billion-high-85b915463061) in cryptocurrency, people should be able to understand and adapt to a token economy more easily than before this happened.
1.6.4. Pro: These can be beneficial to the environment.
1.6.4.1. Pro: People can make tokens on something that is either [worth saving \(like trees\) or getting rid of \(CO2\)](https://blockchainhub.net/blog/blog/token-economy-future-currencies/) to provide an economic-like action on solving climate change.
1.7. Resource-Based Economy \([RBE](https://www.kialo.com/transitioning-to-a-resource-based-economy-rbe-is-the-most-sustainable-way-for-humanity-to-continue-to-survive-3580/)\)
1.7.1. Pro: A system that manages it's resources and shares them will have less waste products. It will also be more fair, since individuals just have to contribute in some way to the society to have the right to goods.
1.8. [Socialism](https://www.kialo.com/socialism-is-a-better-alternative-to-capitalism-4066)
1.8.1. Pro: Automation, AI, and big data of post-scarcity climates will help governments realize a working centrally planned economy.
1.8.1.1. Pro: Access to big data will solve one of the key issues of centrally planned economies: insufficient information \(due to [artificial pricing](https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-failed/)\).
1.8.1.1.1. Pro: [Amazon](https://web.archive.org/web/20190419034848/https://www.predictiveanalyticsworld.com/patimes/amazon-knows-what-you-want-before-you-buy-it/3185/)'s successful algorithms can be used to forecast customer behavior, demands, and product choices. Such algorithms can be used by the authorities to predict the demands in an economy \(macroeconomic\). Thus, they can be used as a tool for success \(where they didn't exist before\) at a large-scale, due to proof in its success.
1.8.1.1.1.1. Pro: Algorithms could tell automated plants and farms when to produce what goods and where to deliver them to ensure the best possible supply, hereby allowing for efficiency where it didn't exist before and success in making socialism possible.
1.8.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: [Historically](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/07/lessons-from-a-century-of-communism/?noredirect=on), when planners genuinely sought to produce prosperity and meet consumer demands, they often lacked the information to do so, which has led to shortages of essential goods and services in many socialist countries.
1.8.1.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: The lack of knowledge lead to lies by dictators and [mass starvation](https://fee.org/articles/a-refresher-course-on-socialism-and-starvation/) in socialist countries.
1.8.2. Pro: Capitalism discourages for the most part the fight against climate change, due to it being profit-, rather than environmentally-based. Socialism may provide an [opportunity](https://www.johnlaurits.com/2018/climate-change-actual-steps-to-fix-global-warming-12-years/) to work on it.
1.8.3. Pro: -> See discussion #27936: A [Socialist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) economy would work better than a [Capitalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) economy.
1.9. Gift economy \([1](https://money.howstuffworks.com/moneyless-world.htm), [2](http://www.moneylessmanifesto.org/book/the-moneyless-menu/the-gift-economy/)\)
1.9.1. Pro: A moneyless economy may be beneficial for the post-scarcity future with automation.
1.9.2. Con: If people do not want to give freely or work, this concept would not be successful in the long run.
1.9.2.1. Con: If in the system people are required to gift something \(work or goods\) to have something, then it could work,especially if you can have things through this system that normally you couldn't have with your wage.
1.9.2.2. Con: We are predisposed by current society to think negatively since people have to do things they don't like to have what they need; Thus, people are already preconditioned for working/giving freely \(like during holidays\), so this has a chance for success, as we can transfer our skills into it.
1.10. Selectively given income \(SGI\)
1.10.1. Pro: An SGI is where only productive citizens get a basic income for their idea\(s\) if they are unable to fund it themselves. Examples of such people who get this income would be college graduates and entrepreneurs.
1.10.2. Con: This has shortfalls. If people need approval for their ideas to get funding, then the entities providing the money could control the situation and only let ideas that benefit them get carried out instead of what's necessary to move the world forward.
1.11. No changes
1.11.1. Pro: We could just let the current economic status adapt to post-scarcity on its own without intentionally placing in a planned economy specifically just for post-scarcity. Adding in a planned economy requires more effort than economic adaptation.
1.11.2. Pro: A planned post-scarcity economy might have a higher risk of failure, because people would not be able to adjust well to an economy that they are not used to.
1.12. [Georgism](https://www.kialo.com/georgism-is-a-better-alternative-to-capitalism-5686/)
1.12.1. Pro: Land monopolization makes progress a zero sum game, as rent increases to capture the social surplus. A Land Value Tax would ensure the social surplus goes to everyone.
1.13. No monetary economy
1.13.1. Pro: In a post-scarcity environment, an economy would not be necessary, because everything would be free. Since scarcity's the [fundamental problem of economics](https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-the-basic-economic-problem-of-scarcity-lesson-quiz.html), without scarcity, there's no economics. Thus, we don't need it.
1.13.1.1. Con: There will always be scarcity of time, until our minds and machines are sped up to infinite speed, or until aging and disease are ended. This means time will have a price, and currency will be necessary. There's also scarcity of space, until we begin building our own terrestrial bodies to live on. And the omnipresent danger of extreme over-consumption.
1.13.2. Pro: There might be some kind of 'economy' in a digital environment, such as tokens when playing video games. However, it would not be a true currency, so that would be an option that people could use.
1.13.2.1. Pro: This could be successful in virtual reality \(VR\), where digital money could take place - but really as 'coins' \(i.e. tokens\).
1.13.3. Pro: Money will no longer be needed in a post-scarcity world, because people could get whatever they want without it. Instead, they could be self-sufficient and be their own producers to be self-reliant instead of dependent on an economy and money to fulfill their needs.
1.13.4. Con: Money, in some form, will need to evolve as debt-for-time exchange will still exist.
1.13.4.1. Con: If our minds and physical manifestations can reach infinite speeds, then this will cease to be true as infinite lifetimes can be lived in the smallest unit of time.
1.13.4.2. Pro: Time will be a scarce resource so long as we are not immortal, and therefore will have a price.
1.13.4.3. Pro: Novelty will exist so long as there is room for creativity, and novelty will be valued and priced. Humans crave rare things and relative wealth status as part of our nature. These things are unlikely to be eliminated, so we need a currency to price them.
1.13.5. Con: A system like this would foster dependence on the system for survival. People would lose the ability to problem solve if most of the big problems have already been solved. If the system would ever fail the community would fail with it.
1.13.6. Con: The thesis provides no solution or workable claim as positing no monetary economy begs the question of what the alternative for exchange of goods might be \(or what situation might obviate the need to exchange goods if such a thing can even be imagined\).
1.14. Digitized [MMT](http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2011/06/modern-money-theory-primer-on.html)/[monetary market system](https://anautonomousagent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/flowoffunds.png) \(a.k.a. fiat or physical money\) for virtual environments
1.14.1. Con: Continuing money in a post-scarcity world would only work in the short-term. In the long run, people will eventually not want to ask permission \(through money\) to get items that they want and will abandon MMT's for better ideas.
1.15. Guaranteed jobs \([1](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/us/politics/democrats-guaranteed-jobs.html), [2](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/economy/guaranteed-jobs-may-not-solve-the-democrats-bigger-problem-with-many-voters/)\).
1.15.1. Con: With automation needed to create post-scarcity, giving people jobs that have no purpose. If anything, that idea creates damage \(through extra resource use\), which would not be a great idea for post-scarcity at all.
1.16. A baby/breeder slot economy for the privilege of having a kid. With limitations on the size and energy expenditure of each person produced.
1.17. UBD \(universal basic dividend\) powered with blockchain technology it is immutable, fraud resistant and most suitable in the age of automation UBD is most adaptive in current socio cultural system! \(But nevertheless very difficult to implement.\)
1.18. [Fully automated luxury communism \(FALC\)](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/mar/18/fully-automated-luxury-communism-robots-employment)
1.18.1. Con: FALCs are more fantasy than reality, as not everyone can have what they want in a world of scarcity.
1.18.1.1. Con: The reason why it borders in the fantasy world, is because it's such a new concept and possibly is explained in sci-fi. If given a chance in reality, its expectations of its outcomes will become more realistic.
1.18.2. Con: It's a relatively new concept \(the [main advocate](https://areomagazine.com/2019/06/24/fully-automated-luxury-communism/) just wrote a book about it [about two months ago](https://www.amazon.com/Fully-Automated-Luxury-Communism-Bastani/dp/1786632624), and first appeared on the internet [under 5 years ago](https://novaramedia.com/2014/11/10/imo-w-aaron-bastani-e003/)\). Because there's no evidence of this working yet, there are too many unknowns to know if this can work.
1.18.3. Con: People might not like it, due to its association with communism, that has failed repeatedly.
1.18.4. Pro: A FALC could be a successor during the transition where capitalism's shortcomings in a post-scarcity environment become too large to handle, but a FALC can make up for them \(especially in terms of automation, as it accounts for it\).
1.18.4.1. Pro: Although capitalism's been the more successful economic system so far, it has not been able to solve the distribution problem humankind is still facing. A FALC would improve upon this to create post-scarcity.
1.18.4.1.1. Pro: Capitalism has widened the gap between rich and poor. A FALC just lets everyone be as rich as they want to, or at least have the same luxuries that the wealthy have, thus eliminating the divide.
1.18.4.1.2. Pro: Capitalism's failures are [low growth, productivity, and wages](https://fullyautomated-luxurycommunism.tumblr.com/post/185516207443/opinion-we-need-fully-automated-luxury-communism#post-notes), and [decline of the middle class](http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/04/15/capitalism-is-failing-the-middle-class/). A FALC removes the constant need for making jobs work by eliminating them and encourage beyond a middle class to let everyone have the benefits of the wealthy class.
1.18.4.1.2.1. Pro: When post-scarcity comes along, this economic system may complement it well \(due to both sharing [demonitization elements](https://areomagazine.com/2019/06/24/fully-automated-luxury-communism/)\).
1.18.4.1.2.2. Pro: Capitalism [doesn't work well](https://areomagazine.com/2019/06/24/fully-automated-luxury-communism/) in an automated world \(like if too many jobs are lost than gained without a solution\). A FALC would be able to accommodate it, as it's based on automation.
1.18.4.1.2.2.1. Pro: If capitalism fails due to automation, there may be nothing or something really unsuitable to take its place \(like an oligopoly\). The FALC idea at least gives the world hope and an option for this capitalistic worst-case scenario \(that the world already trending towards\).
1.18.4.1.2.3. Pro: If people do work, then they may take up more meaningful work - due to not working for profit, but instead for need fulfillment.
1.18.4.1.2.4. Pro: Pure capitalism [doesn't work](http://www.milkproduction.com/Library/Editorial-articles/Treating-mastitis-Balancing-cure-money-welfare-and-resistance/) and failed before \(see [laissez-faire/anti-trust laws](http://iris.nyit.edu/~shartman/mba0101/trust.htm)\), due to its [inability to reduce poverty/suffering](https://castinglargeshadows.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/why-pure-capitalism-doesnt-work/). A FALC is more encompassing in alleviating this by [providing abundance to everyone](https://www.versobooks.com/books/2757-fully-automated-luxury-communism).
1.18.4.1.2.5. Con: The world is 120 times \("gain in consumption of average human" x "gain in life expectancy worldwide" x 7\) better off today than in 1800 as a result of [capitalism](https://www.dailywire.com/news/14525/5-statistics-showing-how-capitalism-solves-poverty-aaron-bandler); therefore, capitalism can be considered successful.
1.18.4.1.2.6. Con: Capitalism has sustainably improved people's lives.
1.18.4.1.2.6.1. Pro: [Capitalism](https://www.dailywire.com/news/14525/5-statistics-showing-how-capitalism-solves-poverty-aaron-bandler) results in lower child mortality rates by producing better access to medicine and standards of living.
1.18.5. Pro: As the allocation of resources becomes distributed evenly, the need for a market based capitalist system becomes unnecessary. In a money-less, labor free, society due to automation, all time becomes leisure time where one can realize and fulfill their true potential without the burden of economic disparity thrust upon by industrialization and class struggle. The arts and sciences would flourish under this new economic system, bolstering creativity and expanding human consciousness.
1.18.6. Pro: -> See discussion #34110: Fully Automated Luxury Communism is desirable.
1.18.7. Con: Anyone who can set this up should do so, though people have many times in the past, and in our past, FALC really means luxury for the wealthy and servitude, formal or practical, for the masses.