That’s sort of the point. That’s one of the challenges in “post scarcity economics-“ if we actually had a way to provide the needs of all or almost all people- what does value matter? Why do people need wealthy? So that they can get what they want and need. But if you have what you want and need, why do you need wealth? If you want a Lamborghini because you think it’s beautiful, or you enjoy the speed- what does the exchange value matter? I do t buy steak because it’s expensive. If I can find a good steak for $10, I will buy that before a $70 steak as my dinner. It’s concepts like artificial value that set things back. We inflate the value of things artificially beyond the replacement resources of time and physical labor and materials required to produce an item. That is the nature of “luxury premiums”- an artificial cost added above the actual value of the item.
While I agree that the whole “let’s give everyone free money” thing is usually poorly thought out- it wouldn’t necessarily “ruin” the economy, especially of gradual changes and programs are introduced. It would transform the economy, and it may destroy the current economic system and replace it with another one. But Revolution is seldom the answer where choice exists. A sudden radical change not only causes ill feelings, but also instability and chaos. Slowly introducing changes along with social reforms could make the idea of a basic income very successful- however just suddenly implementing such changes on a wide scale would leave huge gaps and cause all sorts of economic chaos. Small changes over time are generally more successful than big changes all at once.
Comments