Wealth is unlimited.

[Anonymous]

There is no pie, except only when it is mandated by coercion, by parasites who control, regulate, admonish and tax whatever trickle of wealth they wish to flow into the system -- and it is administered to whomever pleases their whims and desires.

When wealth is unleashed, left to all who come across it -- the people -- it builds exponentially. Men will invest their Capital, people will grasp the Capital and they will build to the ends of the Earth with said Capital until every desire is filled! As long as there is desire, there is wealth and prosperity!

Only when wealth is strangled and choked to irrational overhead, bureaucracy, corrupt incentive and ABSOLUTE WASTE is there starvation and death!

No man sits on wealth and lets it remain stagnant and rot! That is in no benefit to him or anybody else! Why keep it when it can be built for himself and others!?

Capitalism is charity. The best damn charity on the planet. Growth without hinder! Those who act with irrational greed and selfishness will be left to the slaughter by those who gain value from the human condition! Humanity can and has thrived unmanaged! We are a powerful species and never has a ball and chain, shackle on limb have made us stronger.

We are man, we are rational and we can build! DO NOT LIMIT US!  

[1714887454]

1714887454

[1714887454]

1714887454

[1714887454]

1714887454

[1714887454]

1714887454

[YoYa]

You are one scary 17 year old.

Protip: All the hot chicks are hippies, you might want to tone it down on the hard core capitalist ;P

[grod]

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

[Hawker]

You are one scary 17 year old.

Protip: All the hot chicks are hippies, you might want to tone it down on the hard core capitalist ;P

Is Atlas 17 ?  I thought he was worried about where he will send his kids to school ?

[LokeRundt]

You are one scary 17 year old.

Protip: All the hot chicks are hippies, you might want to tone it down on the hard core capitalist ;P

I myself am married to a beautiful AnCap woman, so there.

Hippy chicks are too flaky, IME

[J180]

You are one scary 17 year old.

Protip: All the hot chicks are hippies, you might want to tone it down on the hard core capitalist ;P

I suggest the opposite, debate them!

Actually to be more specific, I don't suggest arguing for any extreme ethical systems. But rather things like arguing in favor of GM food, which is a great way to show off science. Or use political discussion to show off knowledge about history. As long as you can do it without being rude, it can be more successful tactic then agreeing with them.

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

It can depend how you view the words. If research and development is counted as work then it can be thought of as unlimited.

[LokeRundt]

You are one scary 17 year old.

Protip: All the hot chicks are hippies, you might want to tone it down on the hard core capitalist ;P

But rather things like arguing in favor of GM food, which is a great way to show off science.

You can argue in favor of Zyklon-B for controlling Semite populations.. . .lots of science in that too, but not likely to impress hippie chicks.
*Personal experience* using science to show why astrology is bogus does NOT get one laid (with hippie chicks)

[Sovereign]

You're bound to see some idiot come in here and use words like "excess wealth" "increasing rich-poor gap" "fairness"

[Anonymous]

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

Sure, it's scarce but with enough improvement we can get by with a fraction of it.

[Sovereign]

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

This is stupid. We never run out of resources in a free market system. Why? The price system prevents that. What happens is when supply gets low, prices start to go up, and people use less of it. What happens when oil supply becomes low? Alternative energy sources start to become viable.

[imperi]

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

Sure, it's scarce but with enough improvement we can get by with a fraction of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale




Energy consumption has been increasing exponentially since the dawn of man.

[benjamindees]

Sure, (energy is) scarce but with enough improvement we can get by with a fraction of it.

Total global energy consumption has never decreased (even temporarily for a period of more than five years) in the history of mankind.

e: Beaten like a CPU miner

We never run out of resources in a free market system. Why? The price system prevents that.

Of course *someone* never runs out as long as they can afford it.  But *you* are likely to run out as soon as the price of food exceeds your ability to pay.

[Anonymous]

I see no issue with the increase. There's not enough incentive to increase efficiency yet. Well, there might be but its hindered due to other factors.

[benjamindees]

There's not enough incentive to increase efficiency yet.

And what is it you think we're going to just "increase efficiency" of?

Even if you assume something stupidly simple like insulation for houses, there are limits to the returns.  Insulation requires resources to create, distribute, and install.  It has a finite lifespan.  It takes a long time, probably several years, to roll out on a large scale in a cost-effective manner.  And it takes even longer for this investment to pay off.

So, no.  The next time energy prices spike, you're not going to see people rolling up their sleeves to make anything more efficient.  You're going to see wars and people dying.  You're going to see a forced drop in consumption and living standards.  In fact you're probably going to see this pretty soon actually, since absolutely nothing has been done to "increase efficiency" since the last time energy prices spiked, except for a bunch of taxpayer theft and subsidized waste.

[Anonymous]

Patents, the department of energy and various other things prevent sufficient innovation. If people want true efficiency, it will happen. Actual innovation is a lot cheaper than war. It's just not people, it's businesses. If the businesses have no incentive because of subsidization and such, then it really lowers consumers options.

It's a matter of common sense: Again, if people want efficiency and there are no barriers, it will occur.

It's not a matter of thinking in our current paradigm but harnessing energy from things such as undiscovered noble gases or even powering our devices with just the vibrations of our bodies.

[Litt]

There is no spoon.

[J180]

You are one scary 17 year old.

Protip: All the hot chicks are hippies, you might want to tone it down on the hard core capitalist ;P

But rather things like arguing in favor of GM food, which is a great way to show off science.

You can argue in favor of Zyklon-B for controlling Semite populations.. . .lots of science in that too, but not likely to impress hippie chicks.
*Personal experience* using science to show why astrology is bogus does NOT get one laid (with hippie chicks)

I have different personal experience. Perhaps it's like shaving, with different techniques work depending on the person.

[AyeYo]

Only 17? LOLOLOLOL  That explains everything.


Unlimited wealth shot down in one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

But here's another for good measure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

[Arrow]

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Solar technology is advancing very fast, and pays itself off eventually making it economical (in the long run).  There are funds that will loan money for the panels, and ask for a portion of the electricity savings essentially eliminating risk and ensuring everyone a bit of savings/gains.

As other limited energy sources shrink in supply people will switch over to solar, the faster the limited sources dry up the faster the switch, all the while the solar panels are becoming more economical with technological advancement.

[nazgulnarsil]

energy scarcity is artificial.  see LFTRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHdRJqi__Z8

[Anonymous]

Only 17? LOLOLOLOL  That explains everything.


Unlimited wealth shot down in one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

But here's another for good measure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Wealth isn't defined by the amount of matter and energy in the universe. It's defined by meeting desires and they can be met by requiring less consumption and at times eliminating the need to consume in the first place.

[AyeYo]

Only 17? LOLOLOLOL  That explains everything.


Unlimited wealth shot down in one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

But here's another for good measure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Wealth isn't defined by the amount of matter and energy in the universe. It's defined by meeting desires and they can be met by requiring less consumption and at times eliminating the need to consume in the first place.

Then the "wealth" you're referring to is ficticious and subjective.  I'm talking about real wealth, resource wealth.

[Anonymous]

Only 17? LOLOLOLOL  That explains everything.


Unlimited wealth shot down in one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

But here's another for good measure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Wealth isn't defined by the amount of matter and energy in the universe. It's defined by meeting desires and they can be met by requiring less consumption and at times eliminating the need to consume in the first place.

Then the "wealth" you're referring to is ficticious and subjective.  I'm talking about real wealth, resource wealth.

No, it's not. This wealth is called technology and innovation and actually makes resource wealth attainable.

[AyeYo]

Only 17? LOLOLOLOL  That explains everything.


Unlimited wealth shot down in one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

But here's another for good measure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Wealth isn't defined by the amount of matter and energy in the universe. It's defined by meeting desires and they can be met by requiring less consumption and at times eliminating the need to consume in the first place.

Then the "wealth" you're referring to is ficticious and subjective.  I'm talking about real wealth, resource wealth.

No, it's not. This wealth is called technology and innovation and actually makes resource wealth attainable.

And resource wealth is limited, so your statement is bunk.

[Anonymous]

Only 17? LOLOLOLOL  That explains everything.


Unlimited wealth shot down in one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

But here's another for good measure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Wealth isn't defined by the amount of matter and energy in the universe. It's defined by meeting desires and they can be met by requiring less consumption and at times eliminating the need to consume in the first place.

Then the "wealth" you're referring to is ficticious and subjective.  I'm talking about real wealth, resource wealth.

No, it's not. This wealth is called technology and innovation and actually makes resource wealth attainable.

And resource wealth is limited, so your statement is bunk.

No, it is limited but the amount of people it can power is not -- or at the least very large.

[nazgulnarsil]

why are you arguing with a fool who doesn't believe in stars?

[benjamindees]

Atlas takes the blue pill itt.

[Anonymous]

Atlas takes the blue pill itt.

Elaborate, if you will.

[benjamindees]

If wealth is subjective and infinite, then just plug yourself in and go back to sleep.

[Anonymous]

If wealth is subjective and infinite, then just plug yourself in and go back to sleep.

Value is subjective in its form. It's whatever people desire. It's always been subjective.

[benjamindees]

Then the line for the frontal lobotomies starts over there ------>

[Anonymous]

Then the line for the frontal lobotomies starts over there ------>

So, tell me, I'm curious... How is wealth objective?

[benjamindees]

I think you can agree that wealth is some function of technology, physical resources, and free energy, yes?

And it seems that what you are arguing in this thread is that technology and free energy are *effectively* unlimited, therefore wealth is unlimited.  Is that correct?

But I think it's easy to see that energy is in fact not unlimited.  Stars burn out.  Nuclear and chemical reactions are not perfectly reversible, as limited by entropy.  You're not advocating zero point vacuum energy, right?  Even if you were, in actuality wealth is more directly proportional to power or impulse, not just energy.  And power is limited by Carnot efficiency.  There is lots of energy in a cup of coffee, for instance.  But you can't use it for useful work, even theoretically.

And I think it's also easy to realize that technology, as a function of human effort, is also not unlimited.  Supporting humans capable of creating new technology takes a lot of energy and resources.  And it doesn't always pay off.  In fact it seldom does.  Human society, when considered as a giant Rube-Goldberg-like technology creation device, is probably one of the worst energy investments possible.

So, while I probably can't give you an exact, objective definition of wealth, I do know its limits, and therefore what form it will take.  So I know it exists.  And I can give you a rough outline.

Some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory

[Anonymous]

The universe has its limits but we can do damn good with what we have and the potential is unleashed when there are no limits on man's creativity.

And I think it's also easy to realize that technology, as a function of human effort, is also not unlimited.

Civilization has proven otherwise. Man isn't going to quit one day. We are not going to stop having desire.

Also, don't be limited by our current view of reality. It always changes. It will change.

[imperi]

The universe has its limits but we can do damn good with what we have and the potential is unleashed when there are no limits on man's creativity.

And I think it's also easy to realize that technology, as a function of human effort, is also not unlimited.

Civilization has proven otherwise. Man isn't going to quit one day. We are not going to stop having desire.

Also, don't be limited by our current view of reality. It always changes. It will change.

We use a fraction of a percentage of the sun's energy that hits the Earth. There is so much potential for us to go. And we will not be using currency from the abacus era.

[V4Vendettas]

We use a fraction of a percentage of the sun's energy that hits the Earth. There is so much potential for us to go. And we will not be using currency from the abacus era.

Totaly agree but then I have a vested interest in this.

Also atlas 17 dude im new here and already a fan of yours but really get out and nail some hippy chicks. These threads will still be here  

[killer2021]

Atlas is right.

Wealth is unlimited because the sweat that drips from your brow is what creates wealth. Technology is used to amplify the amount of goods and services that can be produced per man hour. Same thing for knowledge, knowledge helps amplify the amount of goods and services that can be produced per man hour. This is the primary concept that must be understood to understand that wealth is indeed unlimited. It is only limited by the amount of knowledge you have and the amount of labor you are willing to expend.

Also don't be confused by the literal meaning of unlimited. In this context the term unlimited means that wealth can be created without a limit as long as you are willing to think and work. If you use the literal meaning then you will interpret that wealth can be created at any amount without the use of human labor or knowledge.

The people who believe that wealth is not unlimited are the same people who think that if one person is becoming wealthly it is done so at the expense of others. This is the belief that encompasses the idea that, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Which is totally false because the standard of living for any society is based on the amount of goods and services produced. So if someone is creating lots of wealth in the form of producing lots of goods and services then that person is making everyone's life better because we now have more goods and services to consume.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GK_fRM8SO0

[Mageant]

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

Energy is free. There are plenty of technologies that can produce practically limitless energy for very little cost (eg. Cold Fusion, Vacume Energy). The only thing is that governments and big corporations have been actively suppressing this technology for their own gain.

[david4dev]

Depending on how you define it, wealth can be limited or unlimited.

However, natural resources are limited. There is a limited amount of oil, there is a limited amount of land, etc. There is no way that 6+ billion people can each own several km^2 of land, own a mansion and fly across the Earth every other day.

A country's wealth is often measured today as GDP. This itself is a measurement of production and consumption. There is a limit to the amount that can feasibly be produced and consumed which is why the belief that we can have endless growth is stupid. Wealth, if you define it in this way is definitely not unlimited.

[david4dev]

Energy is free. There are plenty of technologies that can produce practically limitless energy for very little cost (eg. Cold Fusion, Vacume Energy). The only thing is that governments and big corporations have been actively suppressing this technology for their own gain.

I assume by "limitless" you actually mean "more than we human's could ever use" because the idea of unlimited energy breaks a fundamental law of physics called the conservation of energy. Cold fusion has never been achieved in any verified experiments. Vacuume energy, as far as we know, can not be harvested for 'free energy'.

[Mageant]

I assume by "limitless" you actually mean "more than we human's could ever use"

Yes.

Cold fusion has never been achieved in any verified experiments.

Cold Fusion effects have appeared in hundreds of experiments. A leading NASA scientist (Dennis Bushnell) has also confirmed that Cold Fusion is real and the most promising future energy technology.

Vacuume energy, as far as we know, can not be harvested for 'free energy'.

That is what the governments and big energy companies want you to believe. Many inventors, engineers and scientists have proved otherwise. They are just not recognized by the established scientific journals and universities because they are also under the control of these same interests.

[david4dev]

Cold Fusion effects have appeared in hundreds of experiments. A leading NASA scientist (Dennis Bushnell) has also confirmed that Cold Fusion is real and the most promising future energy technology.

citation needed

That is what the governments and big energy companies want you to believe. Many inventors, engineers and scientists have proved otherwise. They are just not recognized by the established scientific journals and universities because they are also under the control of these same interests.

So any evidence that goes against what you say can be explained away by claiming that 'the powers' are planting false evidence / hiding the truth.

[Mageant]

Cold Fusion effects have appeared in hundreds of experiments. A leading NASA scientist (Dennis Bushnell) has also confirmed that Cold Fusion is real and the most promising future energy technology.

citation needed

Bushnell, Dennis M. (2011-04-23), "The Future of Energy (Interview with Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA Langley)", EV World: 04:24, retrieved 3 June 2011
http://www.evworld.com/evworld_audio/dennis_bushnell_part1.mp3

[kjj]

Vacuume energy, as far as we know, can not be harvested for 'free energy'.

That is what the governments and big energy companies want you to believe. Many inventors, engineers and scientists have proved otherwise. They are just not recognized by the established scientific journals and universities because they are also under the control of these same interests.

Actually, this is what our current understanding of the laws of physics wants us to believe.  Extracting useful energy from the ZPF would require overturning just about everything we know about energy.  And would be totally cool.

[david4dev]

Vacuume energy, as far as we know, can not be harvested for 'free energy'.

That is what the governments and big energy companies want you to believe. Many inventors, engineers and scientists have proved otherwise. They are just not recognized by the established scientific journals and universities because they are also under the control of these same interests.

Actually, this is what our current understanding of the laws of physics wants us to believe.  Extracting useful energy from the ZPF would require overturning just about everything we know about energy.  And would be totally cool.

And as far as we know, impossible.

[Aristotle]

1) Resources are limited
2) Wealth is extracted from resources (be it energy, materials, food)
3) Wealth is limited.

"Free energy" breaks the laws of thermodynamics.

Solar cells require a lot of (limited) rare metals. Ditto for batteries, wind turbines, and hydrogen fuel cells.  Every way of producing hydrogen is wasteful (it's not an energy source).

There is no free lunch.

The elephant in the room is arable land for food production.  We are close to reaching that limit already.  The amount of arable land is decreasing, and the need for it is increasing.  Not to mention all the (limited) fossil fuels that go into food production, and the damage to the environment when we cut down every forest on earth and try to turn them into farm land.

Anybody who thinks exponential growth is sustainable is a fool.

Population is limited by the Earth's carrying capacity.

I think humanity is at a crossroads.  Should be interesting.

[Fakeman]

The people who believe that wealth is not unlimited are the same people who think that if one person is becoming wealthly it is done so at the expense of others. This is the belief that encompasses the idea that, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Which is totally false because the standard of living for any society is based on the amount of goods and services produced. So if someone is creating lots of wealth in the form of producing lots of goods and services then that person is making everyone's life better because we now have more goods and services to consume.

It's not the quantity of goods alone that improves quality of life. How are the masses of discarded low-quality goods piled in landfills improving anyone's quality of life?

[gonzas144]

The people who believe that wealth is not unlimited are the same people who think that if one person is becoming wealthly it is done so at the expense of others. This is the belief that encompasses the idea that, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Which is totally false because the standard of living for any society is based on the amount of goods and services produced. So if someone is creating lots of wealth in the form of producing lots of goods and services then that person is making everyone's life better because we now have more goods and services to consume.

It's not the quantity of goods alone that improves quality of life. How are the masses of discarded low-quality goods piled in landfills improving anyone's quality of life?

+1

Same thing happens when you say "This country is prosperous because it has a hight GBP index". And it is a total fallacy.

[dannickherpderp]

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

*looks up at the sky, sees a huge quadrillion-quadrillion-ton fusion reaction overhead"

Well that ain't unlimited, but it would probably last us a while.  Maybe we make a little version of it around here sometime, you know, for convenience.

[YoYa]

Unlimited wealth shot down in one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

But here's another for good measure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

IMO, these are the rules that define everything.....EVER!

Akin to the kernel of our existence.

[Anonymous]

I will repeat:

Resources are limited. What we can do with them is not.

[Aristotle]

But you need resources to do things with resources.

And what we can do with resources is limited by the laws of nature/physics, or whatever you want to call it.

[Anonymous]

laws of nature/physics

We know hardly anything about such things. We may think we do but we prove our knowledge is more shallow everyday.

But you need resources to do things with resources.

It's called Capital, haha.

[david4dev]

But you need resources to do things with resources.

It's called Capital, haha.

but capital requires finite natural resources to create and is therefore finite itself   

[Anonymous]

But you need resources to do things with resources.

It's called Capital, haha.

but capital requires finite natural resources to create and is therefore finite itself   

No. Capital can be taken from created wealth derived from innovation.

[david4dev]

As I understand, capital is a physical good used to produce goods and services that doesn't get consumed in the process. An example would be a catalyst in a chemical reaction or a tool used in production. The capital itself has to eventually be produced from the finite resources we have so is finite itself.

[Anonymous]

As I understand, capital is a physical good used to produce goods and services that doesn't get consumed in the process. An example would be a catalyst in a chemical reaction or a tool used in production. The capital itself has to eventually be produced from the finite resources we have so is finite itself.

John has a factory that can produce 5 cars with 1 unit of energy. He invents a process that uses less matter and only .25 units of energy. Revenue increases, not from harvesting more finite resources but by using less and meeting more desire.

Do you understand my premise now?

[david4dev]

As I understand, capital is a physical good used to produce goods and services that doesn't get consumed in the process. An example would be a catalyst in a chemical reaction or a tool used in production. The capital itself has to eventually be produced from the finite resources we have so is finite itself.

John has a factory that can produce 5 cars with 1 unit of energy. He invents a process that uses less matter and only .25 units of energy. Revenue increases, not from harvesting more finite resources but by using less and meeting more desire.

Do you understand my premise now?

That is a description of increased efficiency. I don't see how that leads to unlimited wealth.

[Anonymous]

As I understand, capital is a physical good used to produce goods and services that doesn't get consumed in the process. An example would be a catalyst in a chemical reaction or a tool used in production. The capital itself has to eventually be produced from the finite resources we have so is finite itself.

John has a factory that can produce 5 cars with 1 unit of energy. He invents a process that uses less matter and only .25 units of energy. Revenue increases, not from harvesting more finite resources but by using less and meeting more desire.

Do you understand my premise now?

That is a description of increased efficiency. I don't see how that leads to unlimited wealth.

Because there is always room for more efficiency until we reach no scarcity at all.

[BubbleBoy]

I will repeat:

Resources are limited. What we can do with them is not.

Really, resources can be stretched indefinitely without limit ? And the technology to do it will spontaneously emerge when conjured by the high prices in the market ? Let me tell you a little story.

Atlas lives on an libertarian island in the middle of the ocean and he's very good at agriculture. So good that he eventually bankrupts every other grower with his superior productions to the point that he comes to own 80% of the arable land. Enabled by the low food price, the population of the island increases to highest historical values. Atlas lives a long and successful life and is well respected by his fellow islander, but one day he passes away.

Atlas` son, who is a sociopath, is now in charge. He decides to stop production, and deprive the market of 80% of the food production. All within his rights as the owner of the private land.

How can the islanders avoid a Malthusian catastrophe and the death of a large number of people ? They are a primitive society without intercontinental navigation, hydroponics, chemistry, genetics. Sure, those things would enable superior production if available, but how can the primitive society solve these problems while threatened with imminent starvation ?

In a normal society the people will resort to physical violence and regain the natural ownership over scarce land. To deny that natural right is to sentence the people to starvation. Tha fact that Malthusian catastrophes do take place both in the animal and in the human world proves that resources don't actually stretch indefinitely.

A fast enough technical evolution might enable that (it did up to now for humanity as a whole), but there's no guarantee it will happen. It's just wishful thinking to believe eliminating patents will enable arbitrary scientifically progress. In fact humanity it's accelerating towards an ecological catastrophe.

[david4dev]

As I understand, capital is a physical good used to produce goods and services that doesn't get consumed in the process. An example would be a catalyst in a chemical reaction or a tool used in production. The capital itself has to eventually be produced from the finite resources we have so is finite itself.

John has a factory that can produce 5 cars with 1 unit of energy. He invents a process that uses less matter and only .25 units of energy. Revenue increases, not from harvesting more finite resources but by using less and meeting more desire.

Do you understand my premise now?

That is a description of increased efficiency. I don't see how that leads to unlimited wealth.

Because there is always room for more efficiency until we reach no scarcity at all.

That is incorrect. There are physical limits to efficiency. You can't, for example, produce a car using no matter and no energy.

[Anonymous]

As I understand, capital is a physical good used to produce goods and services that doesn't get consumed in the process. An example would be a catalyst in a chemical reaction or a tool used in production. The capital itself has to eventually be produced from the finite resources we have so is finite itself.

John has a factory that can produce 5 cars with 1 unit of energy. He invents a process that uses less matter and only .25 units of energy. Revenue increases, not from harvesting more finite resources but by using less and meeting more desire.

Do you understand my premise now?

That is a description of increased efficiency. I don't see how that leads to unlimited wealth.

Because there is always room for more efficiency until we reach no scarcity at all.

That is incorrect. There are physical limits to efficiency. You can't, for example, produce a car using no matter and no energy.

Well, fuck cars. Who says we are limited to them for transportation? There are limits but we aren't limited by them.

[benjamindees]

John has a factory that can produce 5 cars with 1 unit of energy.  He invents a process that uses less matter and only .25 units of energy. Revenue increases, not from harvesting more finite resources but by using less and meeting more desire.

Eve steals John's idea and builds her own factory with less debt and overhead.  Eve undercuts John on price.  John goes out of business.  Eve's cars are sold to third world immigrants who use the savings to have five kids.  The five kids grow up with an inflated standard of living relative to their productive capacity.  John didn't manage to reproduce since he spent all of his time inventing.  Eve realizes that she got the stolen formula wrong and all of her cars disintegrate over time.  The five kids have an existential crisis when they reach maturity and realize that they aren't capable of producing enough to maintain their standard of living, and there aren't enough John's left to redistribute wealth from.  They join the army and invade some other country to rob them of natural resources.

Saying "revenue increases" is utterly meaningless.  Money is a fiction.  As long as there is at least one irrational actor with a womb, consumption will rise to meet supply until supply falters and everything goes pear-shaped.

Do you understand how the world works now?

[david4dev]

There are limits but we aren't limited by them.

lol

[Anonymous]

John has a factory that can produce 5 cars with 1 unit of energy.  He invents a process that uses less matter and only .25 units of energy. Revenue increases, not from harvesting more finite resources but by using less and meeting more desire.

Eve steals John's idea and builds her own factory with less debt and overhead.  Eve undercuts John on price.  John goes out of business.  Eve's cars are sold to third world immigrants who use the savings to have five kids.  The five kids grow up with an inflated standard of living relative to their productive capacity.  John didn't manage to reproduce since he spent all of his time inventing.  Eve realizes that she got the stolen formula wrong and all of her cars disintegrate over time.  The five kids have an existential crisis when they reach maturity and realize that they aren't capable of producing enough to maintain their standard of living, and there aren't enough John's left to redistribute wealth from.  They join the army and invade some other country to rob them of natural resources.

Saying "revenue increases" is utterly meaningless.  Money is a fiction.  As long as there is at least one irrational actor with a womb, consumption will rise to meet supply until supply falters and everything goes pear-shaped.

Do you understand how the world works now?

There's no coherent logic here. None.

People can learn to use less-and-less of supply. That is a fact. We have not reached the limits of efficiency. Nowhere close.

[Anonymous]

There are limits but we aren't limited by them.

lol

They say you can't move matter faster than the speed of light. However, you can move the space around an object as fast as you like.

[david4dev]

There are limits but we aren't limited by them.

lol

They say you can't move matter faster than the speed of light. However, you can move the space around an object as fast as you like.

    ^
    ^
    ^

There no coherent logic here. None.

[Anonymous]

There are limits but we aren't limited by them.

lol

They say you can't move matter faster than the speed of light. However, you can move the space around an object as fast as you like.

    ^
    ^
    ^

There no coherent logic here. None.

It's actually a widely acclaimed possibility. We don't know shit about the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

[Sovereign]

energy scarcity is artificial.  see LFTRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHdRJqi__Z8

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[kjj]

When energy is cheap, everything else is cheap too.

If I was emperor, every year I'd give a billion dollars to Bussard's team, another billion to the LFTR team, and a billion to a committee to hand it out to the most promising ZPF/LENR cranks in blocks of thousands or millions as they see fit.  And another 7 billion to build standard commercial uranium reactors until one of the other projects was ready.

[benjamindees]

So we have established that wealth is unlimited as long as we work hard and learn to make do with less.

[Anonymous]

Yes but we can use less and not feel a difference.

[benjamindees]

See, the word I would probably use for people who work in order to consume less and maintain the same standard of living is something like "suckers" or "poors".  Little did I know that those people are actually becoming more and more wealthy.

[billyjoeallen]

Do you peak oil alarmists have any idea how much potential energy we can harvest from solar, nuclear, fossil fuels, bio-fuels, wind, waves, tides, geothermal, etc?  We could increase our per capital energy consumption a billion fold and still come nowhere near maxing out or 100% efficiency.
Every Person on the planet could fit into the state of Texas and have a population density no greater than New York City. Our wealth potential is effectively unlimited. Any claims to the contrary are pedantic or just plain wrong.

[Jack of Diamonds]

Let them use wealth and make more bots; genesis pools; unlimited wealth of genes.
Some are offended by cryogenics or are drilled to hate this work; cache mines. Misuse of patents are simply those. You know how hard it is to upgrade the bathroom technology, worldwide? Frozen throne.

Are you the guy who's been email spamming viagra and prozac for decades?

[whenhowwho]

Interesting thread. The theory is absolutely correct. Everything is limitless. Energy is limitless it can neither be created nor destroyed it can only be converted from one form to another. Conversions are unlimited except that current technologies have limits. Wealth is absolutely unlimited currently. It is only determined how you define wealth. Wealth is abundance therefore anything that is held in abundance can be considered wealth. Love of many can be wealth. Having an abundance of feces can be wealth, this particular example can be demonstrated by the elephant dung millionaire. Bitcoins are limited theoretically yet they are in essence nothing but electrons creating 1's and 0's. If you had 1 million pieces of this nothing than one could argue that you are indeed wealthy.


I often find it amusing to read the insults that are traded. They offer nothing to the conversation generally but can be amusing. They also appear to have no limits. A person who has been given many insults is also wealthy.

[misterbigg]

WEALTH is NOT unlimited, it is predictably finite (but increasing). Wealth is defined as the collective subjective value of the sum of all available goods (both raw materials and finished products) and services. Clearly, the supply is limited. It is precisely because these things have a measurable quantity that makes them economically valuable. Compare that with, say - air. You can pretty much always breathe. Air is in limitless abundance. Therefore it has no value. Except when there is no air, for example in space, or when you go scuba diving. Then it becomes limited to what can be fit into containers and launched into orbit or strapped to your back. That's when it acquires economic value.

[misterbigg]

Everything is limitless. Energy is limitless it can neither be created nor destroyed it can only be converted from one form to another.

Incorrect. Second law of thermodynamics shows us why it is impossible for a system to perform infinite work.  In fact, the total energy in the universe is finite. Rather large, but finite. Also, the available portion of the universe that can be leveraged by humans has a limited horizon since galaxies are moving away from each other (and eventually, solar systems and planets). So humans can never harness all of the energy in the universe: most of it will remain perpetually out of reach.

It is true that energy can be converted from one form to another but every time this process takes place, entropy is increased and the amount of USEFUL work that can be performed goes down, until work can no longer be extracted from the system (i.e. perfect thermal equilibrium).

[whenhowwho]

I would argue that air is almost limitless but also quite valuable. I am willing to bet that if you were suffocating you would find air to be more valuable than silver gold or all of the money in the world. Can't spend money or enjoy anything if you are dead.  As wealth can also be defined as an abundance or profusion of anything, this is where the statement wealth is limitless comes into play.

[whenhowwho]

Everything is limitless. Energy is limitless it can neither be created nor destroyed it can only be converted from one form to another.

Incorrect. Second law of thermodynamics shows us why it is impossible for a system to perform infinite work.  In fact, the total energy in the universe is finite. Rather large, but finite. Also, the available portion of the universe that can be leveraged by humans has a limited horizon since galaxies are moving away from each other (and eventually, solar systems and planets). So humans can never harness all of the energy in the universe: most of it will remain perpetually out of reach.

It is true that energy can be converted from one form to another but every time this process takes place, entropy is increased and the amount of USEFUL work that can be performed goes down, until work can no longer be extracted from the system (i.e. perfect thermal equilibrium).

Only one small problem. The entire universe is not known as we have not developed a way to actually see it. We have made leaps and bounds but we dont know where the edge is or even if there is one. Anything we can see we cannot see in real time so it is actually not where it appears to be. Looking at the universe is in fact like looking back through time. So energy in the universe cannot be finite. It may remain out of reach but nobody can say for how long. Technologies change over time. Ten thousand years ago humanity could not have dreamed of where we are today and ten thousand years from now we cannot dream of where we will be. That is if in fact we are not extinct.

The second point is as only as far as we ourselves currently understand how things can be manipulated. Carbon for instance has been manipulated from one form to the next a larger number of times than current human understanding can fathom. All of this manipulation has required energy in one form or another an equally or grater amount of times than mankind can currently understand.

Remember that just 600 years ago the world was flat and mankind could not grasp the fact that the world was a spherical object. The laws of gravity, thermodynamics, and relativity have only been adopted very recently in terms of mankind's total existence. Their validity is only as good as mankind's current understanding. 75 years ago we did not know that if you break an atom a tremendous amount of energy would be released imagine what we might know in another 75 years

[IlbiStarz]

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

Sure, it's scarce but with enough improvement we can get by with a fraction of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale




Energy consumption has been increasing exponentially since the dawn of man.

This is due to miners. LOL.

[Aristotle]

Remember that just 600 years ago the world was flat and mankind could not grasp the fact that the world was a spherical object. The laws of gravity, thermodynamics, and relativity have only been adopted very recently in terms of mankind's total existence. Their validity is only as good as mankind's current understanding. 75 years ago we did not know that if you break an atom a tremendous amount of energy would be released imagine what we might know in another 75 years

Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

[david4dev]

Can someone please define wealth? Then it would be more clear whether wealth is limited or not.

[myrkul]

Here's the relevant one:

Economics :
a.all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b.anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.

Also: the state of being rich; prosperity; affluence: persons of wealth and standing.

Personally, I think Atlas should have set the pipe down, on this one. Scarcity is the foundation of economics.

The second definition is unlimited, because "the state of being rich" is subjective.
The first one, not so much.

[jgraham]

There are limits but we aren't limited by them.

lol

They say you can't move matter faster than the speed of light. However, you can move the space around an object as fast as you like.

    ^
    ^
    ^

There no coherent logic here. None.

It's actually a widely acclaimed possibility. We don't know shit about the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

In what sense is space "moved" and in what sense is that FTL travel?

Or is it....

I am ignorant.  I have an opinion but nothing behind it.

[westkybitcoins]

One of my first introductions to economics was a book called "Unlimited Wealth" by Paul Zane Pilzer. Don't know that I'd call the guy the best economist ever, but the book was eye-opening, and helped spark an interest in the subject.

So when Atlas started this thread, I was pretty sure I knew where he was coming from. But I'm amazed at how quickly people started taking the title literally and began arguing the laws of thermodynamics. (Although I admit, Atlas stretching things to the point of discussing workarounds to the speed of light isn't helping much.)

I don't think it's difficult to see how humanity's wealth, reasonably defined*, can, given time, be increased with no limit that is relevant to us. The fact that only X pounds of a material exist on the planet doesn't condemn us to only be able to produce Y units of good from that material. Yes, things may happen that way, but a cap of Y units isn't a necessity. A simple shift in production methods may reduce waste and increase the number of units by 50%. A newly-engineered unit design may allow the units to be produced with a lighter structure (less material), doubling the number available. A future additive may even increase the unit's power for negligible cost and effort, so that one new unit can function as well as 4 old ones, for yet another effective increase in production, and a total effective production of 12Y units rather than Y. It is the intelligence and creativity of mankind that is the true limiting factor to humanity's wealth, far more than the material we see around us.

Those who disagree with this, and really think we can't continually increase wealth, somewhat confuse me. I have to wonder why those folks haven't simply jumped into politics to just grab as much power and wealth as they can for themselves and their descendants, and to loot and pillage as much as is socially acceptable. Because if the pie really is limited, then, pfft! Why not? If someone must be "the sucker", why let it be you?


*A reasonable definition would not be one that states wealth is simply a measure of the mass of physical material one owns. I would hope a little thought could show how one could have less of some substance, yet still be objectively wealthier than someone with more of it.

[david4dev]

So I think most of us are actually agreeing here without realising it  .

Wealth, if defined as a physical measure is limited because our natural resources are limited.

If it is defined more loosely as a definition of well being, it is not limited.

[Joise]

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

This is stupid. We never run out of resources in a free market system. Why? The price system prevents that. What happens is when supply gets low, prices start to go up, and people use less of it. What happens when oil supply becomes low? Alternative energy sources start to become viable.

That's as wrong as saying that in a free market system, there can't be famine.

What's dangerous with energy in general and oil reserves in particular is that the time needed to adapt may be MUCH shorter than the life span of such things as houses, cars, motorways and so on. We are pretty much bounded to a fossile-driven economy with a base that could largely disappear within a decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_Oil

http://europe.theoildrum.com/

So, no.  The next time energy prices spike, you're not going to see people rolling up their sleeves to make anything more efficient.  You're going to see wars and people dying.  You're going to see a forced drop in consumption and living standards.  In fact you're probably going to see this pretty soon actually, since absolutely nothing has been done to "increase efficiency" since the last time energy prices spiked, except for a bunch of taxpayer theft and subsidized waste.

That's true also. We had an energy price spike in 2009. At the same time there was a collapse of the american mortgage market. This can surely attributed to the fact that the whole american economy is debt-driven.

But there is another fact: The higher prices for gasoline becomes, the less money have people to spend for paying mortgage and other goods. The further away the houses are from workplaces, the more pronounced is this effect.

Actually, prices for houses fell much more for the ones far away from the urban centres. One can surely say that the spike in energy prices has contributed to the financial crisis.

There's another point: Oil production requires immense amounts of capital and is bound to cheap credit.
Oil production did not rise in the last five years, in spite of rising global demand.

You can think of the current industrial system as a kind of organism. It lives from cheap oil, but it is also required to sustain oil production. It may be capable to adapt, but not quickly.

If you take a lion and the choke its common carotid artery, you don't get a lion adapted to less oxygen in the blood. You get a dead lion, assumed you survive the fight.

[ronwan]

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

This is stupid. We never run out of resources in a free market system. Why? The price system prevents that. What happens is when supply gets low, prices start to go up, and people use less of it. What happens when oil supply becomes low? Alternative energy sources start to become viable.

Pretty much right on, I would recommend checking out the late economist Julian Simon on YouTube, he and others have found that the worlds is the opposite as you may think.  The more resources we use the more resources we get.  When Whale oil for lamps got scarce the switch to Kerosene opened of the door for gasoline, cars, plastics. Scarcity causes natural conservation and the search for alternatives, which in turn causes innovations and a rising standard of living.

[EconomicOracle]

I agree with every single post in this thread.

[david4dev]

I agree with every single post in this thread.

No you don't. 

[muad_dib]

Discussing such topics on the internet it is very difficult, as it requires a much higher understanding of economics than what the average internet user has.

Also a statement like: "Wealth is unlimited" is very bold. I would rephrase it as "Is wealth unlimited?"

This is a question which the average businessman doesn't bother with, as it seems pointless. In fact it is not originated by businessmen but by theologists. This question arise from different interpretation of the Bible.

Back in the XV century if you were a catholic, your answer to this question were NO. For you wealth is limited and you must take all actions to get in possession of it. Wealth which is most appreciated in the form of gold.

This ultimately lead to a good thing, the discovery of the Americas, and a bad thing, the spoilage of all the available gold, by any mean necessary. This destroyed the spanish superpower, as it driven inflation to the sky, ruining the economy.


Instead if you were a British Christian, your answer were YES. For you wealth is unlimited and we need to find new ways to extract it from existing goods. This ultimately lead to the industrial revolution, paid with the death of too many, but driving the human being in a new era.



Since Catholics lost the medieval economy war, now the word follow mostly the british christian line of thought, especially in the US.

[billyjoeallen]

Can someone please define wealth? Then it would be more clear whether wealth is limited or not.

Wealth is resources (natural or otherwise) in a form fit for human use.

[Fakeman]

Wealth is a pretty open-ended concept so sure it's unlimited in certain senses, but that doesn't mean for example that an unlimited number of people can live comfortably on earth at the same time. But yeah, there's no limit to how much (subjective) value you can add to a starting material with the right equipment and expertise. That value can be fleeting though, your $10,000 carbon fiber bicycle or $1M/kg wonder drug basically become worthless if burned in a fire. Or, especially in the absence of patent protections, the resale value of those things could be greatly diminished without their destruction if someone comes along and produces something that works just as well or better for 1/10 or 1/100 of the price you paid. Neither the bicycle nor the wonder drug is really intended to store long-term value though necessarily, so it should be no particular surprise if they don't.

[Confucius]

What about when we reach The Singularity? When technology advances at an exponentially infinite speed that it moves too fast for humans (without genetic modification) to comprehend.
Indeed, this would be a time where there would be more than enough abundance for every being to potentially be as wealthy as the next - No pie, unlimited wealth.

As stated, wealth is subjective.

Humans simply do not understand enough of the universe to conclude what is limited and what is not.
Imagine if you will, parallel universes. Or just about any other theorized possibilities, that work in our favor.  
The more we know, the more we realize how much we don't know

Literally, entire novels could/have(?) been written by philosophers on the subject of wealth.

[Aristotle]

What about when we reach The Singularity?

See I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream.  Well, only if you want to read a good sci-fi short-story.

We have just as much as a chance of reaching "The Singularity" as we have of reaching another Dark Age, IMO.  We don't know enough about parallel universes, extra dimensions, AI, etc. to know what is, and isn't possible yet.  I just prefer to take the most pessimistic stance, so I'm not disappointed

[whenhowwho]

hmm now we need a socrates and a plato. Sorry couldnt resist

[Fakeman]

The original topic is a bit dull because nobody really seems to disagree with it. It's like arguing that happiness is unlimited, sure it is but so what? How about this, a lot of economic activity is centered around the destruction of wealth. Cars are constantly damaged and destroyed in collisions (not to mention the associated medical costs), household items are designed to fail so they will be discarded and replaced, and electronic devices rapidly become obsolete and are discarded before they break in many cases. The result is not lasting wealth, but a population with huge debts surrounded by a lot of garbage.

[myrkul]

household items are designed to fail so they will be discarded and replaced, and electronic devices rapidly become obsolete and are discarded before they break in many cases. The result is not lasting wealth, but a population with huge debts surrounded by a lot of garbage.

Car accidents are just that: Accidents. If you know a way to prevent accidents before they happen, get to work, you'll be rich in no time.

As to the rest, I have household appliances I've had for years. Some, I've never had to replace. Also, have you considered how much more it might cost to create equipment that never breaks down? Electronics are becoming obsolete because technology is advancing. So, either you are advocating a reduction in progress, or that we should stop overengineering our computers so much. (so they break down sooner)

[Fakeman]

household items are designed to fail so they will be discarded and replaced, and electronic devices rapidly become obsolete and are discarded before they break in many cases. The result is not lasting wealth, but a population with huge debts surrounded by a lot of garbage.

Car accidents are just that: Accidents. If you know a way to prevent accidents before they happen, get to work, you'll be rich in no time.

As to the rest, I have household appliances I've had for years. Some, I've never had to replace. Also, have you considered how much more it might cost to create equipment that never breaks down? Electronics are becoming obsolete because technology is advancing. So, either you are advocating a reduction in progress, or that we should stop overengineering our computers so much. (so they break down sooner)

I don't believe I've argued for either of those things. I've only given some examples where certain economic activities appear to depend on the destruction of wealth to some degree. My 10 year old Thinkpad has a working screen, keyboard and power supply etc, why can't I just swap out the motherboard like I would with a desktop computer and continue to use the parts that work just fine? It's not that it would cost the manufacturer more to use a modular design (in fact the opposite is probably true), but if they did I wouldn't have to buy a whole computer to get something current. If you know of some exception to this among laptop manufacturers I'm all ears.

The keypad on your microwave breaks so you can either pay a ridiculously inflated price for a replacement part thanks to a proprietary design, or just buy a new microwave even though the other parts of your old one probably work fine. Oddly though your $5 TV remote never seems to have that problem in spite of frequent use and extremely low manufacturing costs. Some things really are just designed to fail and it's not always because making something durable would cost more.

[myrkul]

The keypad on your microwave breaks so you can either pay a ridiculously inflated price for a replacement part thanks to a proprietary design, or just buy a new microwave even though the other parts of your old one probably work fine. Oddly though your $5 TV remote never seems to have that problem in spite of frequent use and extremely low manufacturing costs. Some things really are just designed to fail and it's not always because making something durable would cost more.

I don't have a good answer for why laptop manufacturers don't use a modular construction, As it would indeed make upgrading easier. That said, you can upgrade a good many parts, such as the memory, the processor, and the harddrive, greatly extending the useful life.

As to why the remote lasts forever and the microwave buttons don't, it's a simple factor of the remote buttons being made with a different switch technology due to the different expected conditions. In a kitchen, everything has to be sealed, so they use a 'bubble switch', a metalized piece of plastic which has a tendency to break with repeated use. Compare that to the remote, which has a traditional momentary push button in it. It's not intentional, but it is a consequence.

[Fakeman]

In both cases a competitor could come in and offer something less wasteful but there are often significant barriers to entry and the established players generally like things the way they are. The guy who invented Dyson vacuums had a good idea but none of the existing vacuum manufacturers wanted to give up the profits from selling overpriced bags so they turned him down (or so the story goes). Ultimately things worked out for him but I don't know if you could call that a typical case. Good for him but in the absence of patent protections someone could probably hit the same $500 price point with much more durable materials, e.g. more lightweight alloys and less plastics.

Just based on our level of technology and available resources, lots of things could probably be designed for a 50+ year lifespan without stratospheric manufacturing costs (my $6.99 thrift store toaster is about that old) but in practice there can be limited/declining incentives to do so. Eventually we will need to be mining the garbage dumps since that's where a lot of our "wealth" has ended up.

[myrkul]

Good for him but in the absence of patent protections someone could probably hit the same $500 price point with much more durable materials, e.g. more lightweight alloys and less plastics.

Agreed, and that's why I'm against IP. Innovation does not come from stagnation, it comes from competition.

[Fakeman]

Someone elsewhere on the forums was suggesting that patent laws will gradually become less enforceable as inexpensive CNC-like equipment becomes more commonplace, in the same way that cheap storage and networking technology made it much more difficult to enforce copyrights. I think that makes a lot of sense, and in a way I think it may point towards using a wide range of metals/alloys (and perhaps other materials) as commodity money rather just the "old standards" of gold, silver and copper. If reproducing certain types of physical objects becomes trivial, then the limiting factor is obtaining starting materials with the physical properties you require (e.g. extremes of density and strength, heat/electrical conductivity, etc.). This metal bullion could be worked directly or just used as a medium of exchange/investment. E.g. if I'm an electrician I might buy "copper certificates" if I want to lock in when prices are cheap but don't have a lot of space to store wiring. Same goes for aluminum, titanium, magnesium, nickel, tungsten, or any number of other metals with economically important properties.

[myrkul]

Someone elsewhere on the forums was suggesting that patent laws will gradually become less enforceable as inexpensive CNC-like equipment becomes more commonplace, in the same way that cheap storage and networking technology made it much more difficult to enforce copyrights. I think that makes a lot of sense, and in a way I think it may point towards using a wide range of metals/alloys (and perhaps other materials) as commodity money rather just the "old standards" of gold, silver and copper. If reproducing certain types of physical objects becomes trivial, then the limiting factor is obtaining starting materials with the physical properties you require (e.g. extremes of density and strength, heat/electrical conductivity, etc.). This metal bullion could be worked directly or just used as a medium of exchange/investment. E.g. if I'm an electrician I might buy "copper certificates" if I want to lock in when prices are cheap but don't have a lot of space to store wiring. Same goes for aluminum, titanium, magnesium, nickel, tungsten, or any number of other metals with economically important properties.

If I've learned anything from watching the markets, it's 'Don't trust "paper metals"' But other than that, I think you may have the right idea.

[Fakeman]

I can't say I trust paper metals either in their current form, but I guess it's a matter of whether you trust who you're dealing with. Paper metals are not really my style personally but some metals have such a low value per unit of mass or volume that some people might prefer to contract out storage to a trusted party. Copper's not really a good example of that but anyway it takes less space to store bricks of copper than the equivalent value in spools of copper wire.

[niemivh]

This is why they need to take Ayn Rand out of the schools and reintroduce the classics.

 

[myrkul]

This is why they need to take Ayn Rand out of the schools and reintroduce the classics.

Like Thomas Paine?

[Fakeman]

This is why they need to take Ayn Rand out of the schools and reintroduce the classics.

Can you be more specific about what you mean by "This"?

[benjamindees]

Looks like this thread has been picked up by the media...

http://www.theonion.com/video/today-now-save-money-by-taking-a-vacation-entirely,20678/