New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#26 2021-08-18 19:52:32

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 4,708

Re: How far to the abundance economy?

tahanson43206,

It's not that China doesn't have the potential to be a great nation, but communists focus on people.  Only small minds do that.  Great minds focus on ideas.  Their system of governance is a failed retread of an idea that was a failure from its inception, that has succeeded in bringing about prosperity nowhere on planet Earth, for so long as people have attempted to implement it.  The only reason China still exists as a nation is their adoption of capitalist economics principles, because had they continued on with communist economics principles, China would've greatly resembled sub-Saharan Africa.

Apart from that, as Peter Zeihan noted, China is an old folks home with a terminal demography.  25 years after their government's 1 child policy, it takes another 25 years to produce a new batch of 25 year olds.  Their children will be taking care of the vast sea of elderly people now, else that impressive population stat will cease to exist inside of 10 years, although that may be inevitable now.  Half the population there is near or over the age of 50.  Look at the crude birth and death rate per 1,000 for their 2020 census.  In the next 10 years, their population growth rate will be negative, since well over 50% of their population will be at or near retirement age, and the other 700 million will either be making robots like mad to take care of mom and dad so they can work, or that population stat will be half of the number of people in India 20 years from now.  The same is true of Russia nowadays.  They're more of a threat to themselves than anyone else.

China's continued existence is now predicated on exports to foreign countries, because if they stop doing that then their wealth evaporates, both their national economy and military atrophies into uselessness, and they basically go back to living the way they did before they adopted capitalism.  The Chinese people send their money abroad, especially to the US, because they realize that they're only one more currency manipulation away from financial ruin if they reinvest into their own country.

Controlled chaos is normalcy over here in America, especially for our military.  We wrote the manual on modern military operations, but never read it, because we've been at war for so long now that constant fighting is all we've ever known.  Remember that Russian special forces gaggle that tried to attack a Marine artillery unit in Syria?  That didn't go so well for them, did it?  Everyone else, including our allies, freaks the hell out whenever things are the least bit chaotic, from their own point of view.  The only form of stability that America has ever had, has been constant change, which is what we thrive on.  Whenever we begin to stagnate, then we're really screwed, but nothing of the sort has happened since the founding of this nation.  Nobody who has bet against America has ever left the game with their shirt on their back, so it's probably not a good idea to re-test that theory after 200 years of history all running in one direction.

Not relying upon centralized authority is why America can be presided over by a senile old man surrounded by evil clowns, but nothing materially changes.  There's no real power invested in that person, because our founders were so very wary of one person having unlimited authority.

One thing's for sure though, and that's that nobody is desperate clamoring to get into communist China.  In contrast, everybody and their dog still wants to come to America, because we still do new ideas and big ideas, such as taking humanity to Mars.  If our system of chaos were ever to befall China, there would be a revolution in a heartbeat, because that's how much the people living over there detest their living conditions.  We worry about cheeseburgers being $1 or $1.50.  They worry about importing enough pork and chicken and legumes to prevent millions of their people from starving to death.  That's a pretty stark contrast.  We still import oil because part of our national strategy is to consume everyone else's oil first.  None of our food is imported, except by choice, to provide an even more bewildering array of meaningless choices to people who can't figure out that they're being terrorized by a bunch of evil clowns hiding behind the dark curtain.  My old boss, a Canadian man living in America, told me you know that you're successful when you can have a bunch of idiots working for you, but still manage to make money hand-over-fist.

Are things any less desperate for some people in America?  No, but people here wear their troubles as a badge of honor, rather than a mark of hopelessness.  I wouldn't trade any of the economic, health, or other issues I muddled my way through as a young man.  It's how I became who I am, and I don't look down on those experiences, because they were necessary.  How can you know what success looks like if you never experience a failure?  Moreover, how can you ever learn and grow without failure?  That's the part that zips right over the heads of people living in societies like communist China.  Rather than putting the brush down after painting themselves into a corner, they keep hoping that someone else will come along to remove them from their corner.  The only people who can do that are them.  That's what they still don't get.  That is why people still come to America.  Those are the people who realize that it's time to put down that stupid brush.  The ones they left behind will never "get it".  If they did, then people would no longer feel the need to come here.

China's fixated on taking a piddly little island off their coastline, filled with their fellow Chinese people, as if that will change the situation they've created for themselves.  That is akin to America worrying about how to take over Cuba or Haiti (who for all intents and purposes may as well be Americans)- because that would solve our problems, right?  Meanwhile, entrepreneurs in America are well on their way to figuring out how to take over an entire planet tens of millions of miles from home.  Just think about that for a moment.  A nation with more than triple our population wants to invade Alcatraz while the richest men and women in America want to invade an entire planet... to both provide a second home for humanity and, as always, to make that next almighty dollar.  If that's what China is betting the farm on, then yeah, I'm still betting on America, because the alternative is pure idiocy.

Offline

#27 2021-08-21 10:49:07

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,598

Re: How far to the abundance economy?

For kbd512 re #26

First, thanks for the thought you put into your long post ....

This topic is about abundance, and I reported the signal that Chairman Xi is thinking about providing some sort of minimal abundance for his 1.5+ billion people.

If your post, important as it is in some context, had anything to do with abundance delivered to a population, I missed it.

Please re-read your post, and then let me (and the forum or others who might chance upon this topic) know what it has to do with delivery of abundance to a population.

In other parallel topics, Calliban is working on delivering abundant atomic energy, and simultaneously I am trying to figure out how to insure that abundance is distributed to entire population of Earth.  For that I am targeting 1 MW of electrical power or the virtual equivalent.

For ** this ** post, I am introducing the concept of USA Common Stock.

We (Americans) already have an informal share of our country's abundance as a birth right.  However, as nearly as I can tell, there is nothing specific in place to insure the promise of that share goes to everyone without regard for all the usual exclusion factors.

I'd like to suggest that a mechanism for formal connection of persons born (or admitted) into the population to a stream of dividends would make sense.

It wouldn't cost anything, and creating such a system would insure that each candidate is permanently and reliably recorded.

I have observed that the present hodge-podge system does NOT insure that infants born into the US population are registered for Social Security (as just one example).  There doesn't even seem to be a national system in place to insure that local jurisdictions even ** acknowledge ** birth of new citizens. 

(th)

Online

#28 2021-08-30 10:59:01

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,598

Re: How far to the abundance economy?

For SpaceNut .... in searching for a topic for this post, I asked FluxBB for topics containing the word "economy"

This topic seemed the best fit ... it does not limit the participant to thinking about a specific planet or even solar system .,..

https://www.yahoo.com/news/world-still- … 31990.html

The World Is Still Short of Everything. Get Used to It.
Peter S. Goodman and Keith Bradsher
Mon, August 30, 2021 8:25 AM

“We have this vicious cycle of all the natural human instincts responding, and making the problem worse,” said Willy C. Shih, an international trade expert at Harvard Business School. “I don’t see it getting better until next year.”

© 2021 The New York Times Company

As an eternal optimist, with training toward spotting opportunity in chaos, I see the present embarrassment of the global interconnected supply system as an opportunity for investors who are fast on their feet to establish local suppliers for the goods that are in demand.

Prices will remain high and deliveries will be slow for a while, so nimble suppliers should be able to capture this moment, and then reduce prices as the overseas suppliers recover their footing.

Superior quality and responsiveness to consumer demand would help to cement the acquisition of market share.

(th)

Online

#29 2021-08-30 13:40:59

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,914

Re: How far to the abundance economy?

A lot of hubris in your post.

Chinese culture has an entirely different approach I think. First off they see themselves as cultural superior and at the centre of affairs on our planet. For them the existence of an independent Taiwan is something that goes against nature and has to be rectified. It's just as much an idea as was the US Constitution (I use the past tense advisedly).

It's a mistake to say their system has become capitalistic. It has strong elements of capitalism but it's probably better thought of as planned state capitalism. The Chinese have a plan to march through all economic sectors and become the leading provider. So far, thanks to Western indolence, political corruption and idiocy, they have been allowed to get on with their plan. Trump is the only Western politician to have stood up to them, and he was removed in a political coup aided and abetted by the Chinese regime.


kbd512 wrote:

tahanson43206,

It's not that China doesn't have the potential to be a great nation, but communists focus on people.  Only small minds do that.  Great minds focus on ideas.  Their system of governance is a failed retread of an idea that was a failure from its inception, that has succeeded in bringing about prosperity nowhere on planet Earth, for so long as people have attempted to implement it.  The only reason China still exists as a nation is their adoption of capitalist economics principles, because had they continued on with communist economics principles, China would've greatly resembled sub-Saharan Africa.

Apart from that, as Peter Zeihan noted, China is an old folks home with a terminal demography.  25 years after their government's 1 child policy, it takes another 25 years to produce a new batch of 25 year olds.  Their children will be taking care of the vast sea of elderly people now, else that impressive population stat will cease to exist inside of 10 years, although that may be inevitable now.  Half the population there is near or over the age of 50.  Look at the crude birth and death rate per 1,000 for their 2020 census.  In the next 10 years, their population growth rate will be negative, since well over 50% of their population will be at or near retirement age, and the other 700 million will either be making robots like mad to take care of mom and dad so they can work, or that population stat will be half of the number of people in India 20 years from now.  The same is true of Russia nowadays.  They're more of a threat to themselves than anyone else.

China's continued existence is now predicated on exports to foreign countries, because if they stop doing that then their wealth evaporates, both their national economy and military atrophies into uselessness, and they basically go back to living the way they did before they adopted capitalism.  The Chinese people send their money abroad, especially to the US, because they realize that they're only one more currency manipulation away from financial ruin if they reinvest into their own country.

Controlled chaos is normalcy over here in America, especially for our military.  We wrote the manual on modern military operations, but never read it, because we've been at war for so long now that constant fighting is all we've ever known.  Remember that Russian special forces gaggle that tried to attack a Marine artillery unit in Syria?  That didn't go so well for them, did it?  Everyone else, including our allies, freaks the hell out whenever things are the least bit chaotic, from their own point of view.  The only form of stability that America has ever had, has been constant change, which is what we thrive on.  Whenever we begin to stagnate, then we're really screwed, but nothing of the sort has happened since the founding of this nation.  Nobody who has bet against America has ever left the game with their shirt on their back, so it's probably not a good idea to re-test that theory after 200 years of history all running in one direction.

Not relying upon centralized authority is why America can be presided over by a senile old man surrounded by evil clowns, but nothing materially changes.  There's no real power invested in that person, because our founders were so very wary of one person having unlimited authority.

One thing's for sure though, and that's that nobody is desperate clamoring to get into communist China.  In contrast, everybody and their dog still wants to come to America, because we still do new ideas and big ideas, such as taking humanity to Mars.  If our system of chaos were ever to befall China, there would be a revolution in a heartbeat, because that's how much the people living over there detest their living conditions.  We worry about cheeseburgers being $1 or $1.50.  They worry about importing enough pork and chicken and legumes to prevent millions of their people from starving to death.  That's a pretty stark contrast.  We still import oil because part of our national strategy is to consume everyone else's oil first.  None of our food is imported, except by choice, to provide an even more bewildering array of meaningless choices to people who can't figure out that they're being terrorized by a bunch of evil clowns hiding behind the dark curtain.  My old boss, a Canadian man living in America, told me you know that you're successful when you can have a bunch of idiots working for you, but still manage to make money hand-over-fist.

Are things any less desperate for some people in America?  No, but people here wear their troubles as a badge of honor, rather than a mark of hopelessness.  I wouldn't trade any of the economic, health, or other issues I muddled my way through as a young man.  It's how I became who I am, and I don't look down on those experiences, because they were necessary.  How can you know what success looks like if you never experience a failure?  Moreover, how can you ever learn and grow without failure?  That's the part that zips right over the heads of people living in societies like communist China.  Rather than putting the brush down after painting themselves into a corner, they keep hoping that someone else will come along to remove them from their corner.  The only people who can do that are them.  That's what they still don't get.  That is why people still come to America.  Those are the people who realize that it's time to put down that stupid brush.  The ones they left behind will never "get it".  If they did, then people would no longer feel the need to come here.

China's fixated on taking a piddly little island off their coastline, filled with their fellow Chinese people, as if that will change the situation they've created for themselves.  That is akin to America worrying about how to take over Cuba or Haiti (who for all intents and purposes may as well be Americans)- because that would solve our problems, right?  Meanwhile, entrepreneurs in America are well on their way to figuring out how to take over an entire planet tens of millions of miles from home.  Just think about that for a moment.  A nation with more than triple our population wants to invade Alcatraz while the richest men and women in America want to invade an entire planet... to both provide a second home for humanity and, as always, to make that next almighty dollar.  If that's what China is betting the farm on, then yeah, I'm still betting on America, because the alternative is pure idiocy.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#30 2021-08-30 15:13:42

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,914

Re: How far to the abundance economy?

I think the economics of 3D printing may well stack up on Mars. You won't have to import the mass which might cost say $100 for a steak. You won't have to use artificial light or build expensive pressurised pastures in order to produce the meat.

The meat might be nominally more expensive than one on Earth, but the Mars economy will be a hi tech and very productive economy. 3D printing of meat will fit perfectly.

That said I have read that stem cell muscle tissue doesn't taste anything like real muscle tissue on cattle. Basically you have to exercise the tissue as happens in the real world and I believe some companies were working on that (creating little "muscle gyms" to work out the tissue - I kid you not).


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#31 2021-09-03 04:20:50

Calliban
Member
From: Northern England, UK
Registered: 2019-08-18
Posts: 1,193

Re: How far to the abundance economy?

Terraformer wrote:

I consider a society to have reached post-scarcity when each person does not have to devote a sizeable fraction of their labour to fulfil their material needs, of shelter, food, energy, water and clothing, to such a standard that they will not be risking health problems from doing so. Theoretically, that could be done by a government rationing system, but governments have proven themselves to be inefficient and prone to corruption, as well as morally unsound, so I'm not in favour of that option.

Now, to do this my way will require access to the universal commons, i.e. internet access. I'm not saying that's a right - no-more than something like food is a right - but that doesn't stop it from being a good idea.

Specialisation may be more efficient (but quite possibly not), but so is centralisation, and not maintaining adequate reserves. It doesn't mean specialisation is a good idea. For a start, it's much less resilient, and it limits freedom, because you're now at the mercy at those who control the essential sections of the economy.

I don't mind having a high population density in certain areas, but that doesn't mean that you need areas of high population. The population density of a typical terraced house can get quite high - a rough calculation based on my own house is 80,000 per square kilometre. I have no objection to towns of 10-20 thousand people surrounded by automated farms and solar power plants, with each house having it's own vegetable garden and probably waste disposal system, and a lot of nature surrounding all that. But I personally think it's too big, and would prefer something with 1-2000 people.

On Earth, we are actually retreating from a post-scarcity economy, as energy cost of energy rises and the proportion of income devoted to basis necessities increases.  This started happening in developed countries around the turn of the century.  In a very real sense, we have been getting poorer in since then.  Middle and working classes are shrinking.  A few people are getting richer.  But global trade in commodities tells the real story: it has been shrinking since 2008.

My worry is that we will eventually lose the ability for things like space travel.  The economy is in essence a thermodynamic machine.  Everything that we call wealth is in one way or another a product of exergy acting on matter.  As the EROI of fossil fuels declines, the amount of surplus energy is declining.  Very soon, tangible declines in aggregate energy production will become visible.  Global oil production appears to have peaked in November 2018 - some three years ago.  Less oil means less transportation of real goods and commodities.  The crisis caused by corona virus, has brought forward the turning point in overall human prosperity by a few years.  The world as a whole is now getting poorer.
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpres … -part-one/

Last edited by Calliban (2021-09-03 04:23:30)


Interested in space science, engineering and technology.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB